Bunker Fetishism

[Dan Herrmann]

It seems from reading the Castle Stuart thread and a number of others that perhaps the most important item on a golf course for a GCA "fan" is bunkering.

Not fairway movement, not green surfaces, not even routing - but bunkers.

Am I completely wrong here, but have folks become overly obsessed about bunkers?  To me, there is a LOT more to architecture than bunkers.  Some aren't sexy at all - drainage, dealing with wetlands, etc., but many are more important than darn bunkers.

What do you think?

[Tom_Doak]

Well put.  I like your term even more than "bunker slut" which I used toward someone a couple of weeks ago.

[Joe Hancock]

Dan,

How we judge bunkers Golf courses and how we judge people isn't all that different. Look in the check-out aisle.....there's not a lot of tabloids focusing on anything beyond the outward appearance.

I'm as guilty as any other guy about noticing a woman from outward appearance well before I know anything about her.

Joe

[Tom MacWood]

From a historical perspective bunkers are important because they are often the most obvious signature of an architect.

[Niall C]

as someone who is involved in the great Castle Stuart bunker orgy, I would only add that it is all Brian Philips fault for posting such evocative photographs. Pure bunker porn.

Niall

[Kyle Harris]

Perhaps a good portion of the problem is that few are both skilled in photography and golf architecture to appropriately capture how effective rolling fairways are architecturally. Bunkers are rather easy targets, don't you think?

[Melvyn Morrow]

A bunker is just another hazard. My point re hazards is that the modern game is about distance and do modern designers seems to be distain from limiting these shot, to throw out a, ’go on and I will catch you out’ challenge to the golfer. Generally, the answer is No, it’s all about letting the golfer hit the ball a longest distance. I know it is all about winning the game by getting the ball down the holes in the least number of strokes, but I want some test or challenge in the process.

Hazards are I believe becoming a dirty word in the eyes of many so called golfers, who want thing easy, so they can boast a low score. Trouble is these guys don’t care about golf, its all about them, ‘look am I not great’, ‘ I have a low handicap and can drive the ball a long way’ – Big deal but can you face the real challenge and play golf.

I put my trust, hope and the future of the game in the hands of our architects past present and future, however I feel we need real hazards that challenge the golfer, during his navigation through the course, giving options to go safely (also allows for high handicap players) or just trust to his/her skills and go for the shot knowing that there are MANY trap this way.

Bunkers that I have seen, pictures both on here and in magazines plus those shown on the TV, show shallow bunkers with low lips and hard sand, allowing the ball to get a brush-up and clean before coming to rest, some rests in the bunker may even give the player an advantage or it bounces in and straight out. Both offer no challenge, trap or hazard, but because it looks like a bunker (but does not play like a bunker) it is perceived as a hazards – yet what is it actually, perhaps the ultimate opt out for a designers – it offers everyone something yet offers absolutely nothing in rear terms.

Tom D, you moan about always coming back to bunkers, but you are the architect/designer is it not down to you or are you restricted to offer these types of hazards on a course. If you are then please accept that some of us will make a comment.

As for Castle Stuart, we were issued photos and made comments upon them. I don’t mind old sleeper being used to do a job but thrown in to a bunker like flotsam on a beach but arranged in vertical lines is just pure decoration and the intention must be to mature a new course. I seen no need to do this nor do I feel it is necessary for a course in Scotland, but by all means use old sleepers to wedge up a bunker, leave an old stone way in place because it has been there for centuries, but to fake the age of a bunker is not really on in my book. I wonder what else has been decorated over to fool me, then I start to wonder what was the intention of the designer or had he just run out of ideas or simply just lost interested in the course.

I feel both are valid concerns based upon what a golfer or independent reviewer sees when checking out a course. Is this what you do in the States and on other courses worldwide, does it make it look right. Well it does not look right as I have said in other posts, it looks cheap and fake IMHO.

However, was this the result of an architect, working in Scotland, just a hand full of miles away from some rather interesting and enjoyable courses, but it would seem that some of the old lessons were not learnt, but we hay, I expect it might be an idea of what Gil thinks Scotland golf courses look like over 100 years ago.   

Tom MacWood, your comment might apply in the USA, but over here, it is not. If you view, the history of the 19th century Courses you will note that bunkers were added on many courses after the course had opened. Generally around 3 month after opening. The bunkers where sited near the second shot divots to act as a hazard. Actually makes you wonder at times if the old guys understood the game better than some of us today.

Melvyn

Kyle

A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous, don’t you think. 

Sorry, can’t remember how many years you have studied golf in Scotland or understood how many of us poor old ignorant folk feel about the game here in Scotland. 

Tom D

I love the term Golf Course Designer - but have not really used that term lately

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood, your comment might apply in the USA, but over here, it is not. If you view, the history of the 19th century Courses you will note that bunkers were added on many courses after the course had opened. Generally around 3 month after opening. The bunkers where sited near the second shot divots to act as a hazard. Actually makes you wonder at times if the old guys understood the game better than some of us today.

Melvyn
Mackenzie, Colt, Simpson, Alison, Park, Braid, Hawtree & Taylor did not have a distinctive bunkering style?

[Ben Sims]

I'd love to hear why some modern designers on their modern courses are using sleepers to shore up bunkers.  I have recently seen pictures of Castle Stuart and The Dunes Course at Prairie Club using sleepers in one form or another.  I have seen at Old Mac, sleepers being used in two or three of the larger bunkers.  Etc, etc.

I suspect that I already know the answer, but I would love if an archie or two would shed light on the subject for my friend Melvyn. 

My hypothesis is that in order for the bunker to remain as penal as Melvyn would like them to, that some sort of revetment in form of sod or sleepers is necessary.  I would also like to point out to Melvyn, that some of the most famous bunkers in golf--the road and strath at TOC--weren't nearly as penal even 50 years ago as they are today. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom
 
Sorry Tom, but I thought you said

From a historical perspective bunkers are important because they are often the most obvious signature of an architect

Golf design and bunkers were not the invention of these Gentlemen. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t . 

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ben

The use of sleepers is fine, I do not know many who would object to the use of sleepers to SHORE UP bunkers. I certainly have no problem.

For a bunker to remain penal its needs to be a trap/hazard, classic the Road Hole bunker on the 17th TOC as seen today.  Bunkers have changed over the years in that some are deeper than before, some are shallower than before. By shallow, I would be referring to a depth of 18-24 inches.  Excuse me, but by my way of thinking  - which may be out of place today – is that bunkers are sand traps, a form of hazard to motivate the golfer to think twice and plan his/her shot to avoid being caught out and take an extra stroke. I don’t consider 6 to 12 inch large shallow pits with a hard base as any sort of trap. In fact, you see the ball bounce in and out, it only stops in these bunkers because the ball has run out of puff (sorry motion). In other words, if we are going to the expense of making a bunker make it do its job, otherwise why have it. The thing will cost money to construct and on going maintenance so it looks pretty and brightens up the hole/fairway or because it is a trap to challenge the golfer.

As for TOC, many of the bunkers were much deeper in the mid 19th Century and had a tendency to fill with about 12-18 inches of water becoming a water hazards, which rather pissed of the then golfers. Old Tom had these bunkers filled to raise the base above the water table, so bunkers had been deeper, but should be used as hazards to steer the golfer to the designers tune, unless he has the skills or balls to chance his luck (sorry ladies).

My comment re CS is that 10 inches of sleeper placed in a bunker with a gap then a 15 inch section is just for decoration, in this case to try and make the bunker much older that it is hence my word, fake. It’s not old it’s new, its being dressed to look like something its not - I just don’t like that idea.  Nothing sinister in that, is there. Also its seems to be aimed not at the locals but for the visitors, a Chocolate Box picture maybe, but it’s a golf course, it’s a sand trap.
As for the construction of the bunker with mixed formats, as Gil mentioned in his video clip (if my memory serves me correctly) he wanted to make the bunkers unique in Scotland – why, why waste money,  just put in a good hazards.

I expect in years to come all this cosmetic stuff will disappear leaving what we all hope will be a good and fun course with some enjoyable challenges – can’t ask for anything more or can we?   

Hope you now understand my opinion on these part sleepers.

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
I'm more of a terrain guy myself, and I think that's a product of where I was raised, NW Connecticut.  It's not that there aren't bunkers around here, it's just that there is less of a need to use them when you have land like we enjoy around here. We also have a lot of older course and the greens are usually interesting.

[Ben Sims]

Melvyn,

Copy.  I am following you now.

I still like the look of the "aged" sleeper that Hanse is trying out at CS (I really think you would like the look of the sleepers in the Hell bunker at Old Mac).  And, IMHO, attention to detail with finishing work is one of the two or three things that separate the top tier designers from the middle tier.

[Will MacEwen]

Perhaps a good portion of the problem is that few are both skilled in photography and golf architecture to appropriately capture how effective rolling fairways are architecturally. Bunkers are rather easy targets, don't you think?

I agree with Kyle on this one.  In a two dimensional photo, the bunkers stand out and are the easiest thing to notice and discuss.  Trying to figure out how a course would actually play from two dimensional representations involves a great deal of guesswork.

[Jamie Barber]

I played Chart Hills in Kent, UK today. Designed by Faldo and usually ranks in the latter end of the UK top 100. If you ever want to see a place with a proliferation of pointless bunkers, this is it.

[Steve Salmen]

In the two months I've spent so far in Scotland, IMO by far the important part of the golf course is the 20 to 30 yards surrounding the hole.  This may include bunkers but does not need to.  Slopes and swales can do just fine.  I read and appreciated some of the comments about the greens at Ballyneal (have not yet played).  I would assume the course plays similar to a true links course.  The hole is probably defended by greens, false fronts, punchbowls, bunkers, and many subtle breaks that are hard to read. 

I think bunkers can be a really cool defense, such as the entry to the 15 at Dornoch, but the huge slope between them is much harder to negotiate.  I've learned that sometimes it's MUCH better to hit into a bunker.  What it does is takes all decision making away from the golfer.  Only a wedge will do.  However, if you miss in a run off area, you now face a shot that can be played with any one of six clubs.  I believe those shots are much more difficult to be committed.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

Bunkers, I believe are not just for basic defence, if well places can actually encourage a golfer to lift his game to accept the challenge or calculate another combination of shots to sink that ball in the cup.

I feel your statement is indicative of the modern attitude in golf today
I've learned that sometimes it's MUCH better to hit into a bunker. For me that seems to state that the designer has given up and gone home. First lets look at what is said ‘lets hit the ball into a hazard’ what madness, if the bunker functioned as a hazard you would not be considering that shot or approach. Although I hate lakes around a Green would you think of hitting your ball into the lake – of course you would not, although I hate them, they work and work well as a hazard. This being the case then the shallow bunker is does not functioning as a hazard, so why have it, why force the client to pay for it plus the ongoing maintenance costs. Secondly, I feel it is a poor reflection on the standard of the modern game that such bunkers are allowed let alone suggested by a serious designer in the first place. The type of bunker I am referring to can bee seen in Sean’s Bunker schemes over time Reply #8 third & 4th photo (identical photos) which shows a very shallow and what appears a hard sand base (see the shallow run of the ball adjacent the rake). With shallow or just a sprinkling of sand in the base and no real depth or edge, these bunkers are just a total waste of money and time IMHO. 

Bunkers, sand traps hazards are in themselves penal, so accept it and stop tinkering with them.  Money being tight make the most out of your hazards, Golf is not meant to be easy, certainly hazards are not and try to take a stroke from a player every time they are encountered, hence they should not be considered as the easy option

Melvyn.

[Dan Herrmann]

Thanks - great comments, all...

How much has color TV with its coverage of the Masters contributed to B.F.?   Were folks in the Golden Age as interested in bunkers as we seem to be today?

Don't get me wrong - I play at a course with some fantastic bunkering.  But there's a lot more out there - the green surfaces, the fairway contouring (amen, Kyle!), the tee placement and the boring stuff like very good drainage.

I was extremely fortunate to play a Flynn classic, Lancaste,r yesterday.  While it has some great bunkering, to me its successes are centered in its ebb and flow, Flynn's use of the Consestoga River, the green contouring, and the beauty of the place.

Same as PD.  Now, PD has world class bunkers - probably the best I've ever played.  But it's not the bunkers that make me long to return - it's the magic of the place - the unique conjunction of linksland, wind, and pure fun.

PS - Melvyn - wouldn't bunkers located on inland Scottish courses be fake too?  By the way, thanks for participating and challenging our paradigms.  While I don't agree with everything you suggest, you sure make me think, and that's a great thing.

Just to make our friends with B.F. happy, here's a provocative picture for you

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I do not mind for SOME bunkers to be very deep and penal, but I think you are crazy if you are suggesting (as you seem to be by complaining when they are not) that ALL bunkers should be EQUALLY penal. 

We left a couple of bunkers at The Renaissance Club where it is sometimes possible to putt out of them ... I saw it attempted twice at our golf event last week, and both times it cost someone the hole in a match, because they could not judge the shot well enough.

Likewise, it is equally silly to insist that the most difficult situation around a green should ALWAYS be in the bunker.  I think it is better that sometimes the guy avoiding the bunker winds up in an even worse predicament that he did not forecast.  The back side of the Road hole at St. Andrews is one such situation.

[Mark Pearce]

Tom,

Doesn't your choice of the Road Hole as an example make the point?  The hazard at the back of that green comes into play and is so much of a threat because the Road Hole bunker is so nasty.  If it was an easy bunker to escape the decision  whether to risk being in the bunker or long and on the road would be a whole lot easier, wouldn't it? 

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

Sure, though you could make the point the other way round just as easily.

For that matter, being IN the Road bunker is often not as bad as being short-left of the green and leaving the bunker between you and the hole.  George Thomas made that point in his book ... that a shallow bunker does not severely punish the ball which winds up in it, but it punishes every wider miss by making it very hard to pitch over the bunker and stop near the hole.  That was his defense for sometimes having shallow bunkers, and to me the logic is impeccable.

[Will Smith]

I don't want to speak for Tom Lehman and Chris Brands, but I can explain some of the thinking behind using fence posts in a few bunkers at the Dunes Course at the Prairie Club.
 
First, we noticed that ranchers often used old fence posts (from the miles and miles of barbed wire fence used to keep in cows) to prevent natural blowouts from spreading. These tended to be in the floors of the blowouts, but it was not too much of a stretch to use them in the faces to achieve the same thing. We even used some to shore up tees that are adjacent to a large blowout on the seventh tee.

Second, our course is competing with Sand Hills and Ballyneal, so using the fence posts would give the bunkers on the course a distinctive look that was both novel and historical at the same time. When we built the bunkers at the PC, we were unaware that Gil and Jim were using them at CS. I believe Kyle Franz had seen the hell bunker at OM, but the use of wood in the bunkers at the PC is much different in style than that bunker. Interestingly we were also inspired by images  in Horace Hutchinson's book.

Third, we think it looks cool.

For more on the reasoning and images see:

http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/04/kyle-franz/

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

1) How often are you thinking specifically about technology advancements when you are "scheming" your bunkers on a certain hole?

2) Do you expect fairway bunkering to exact the same penalty as a greenside bunker? Or vice versa as the case may be?

Will,

Awesome link that I was happy to read again. I for one love the look of those bunkers at PC. 

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

There have been a few times when I've put in a fairway bunker thinking that practically nobody could carry it now (from all the way back) but they will be able to sometime down the road.  The 16th at Black Forest had one of them ... a cross bunker 290 from the back tee which was unthinkable 17 years ago, but not today.  (It was set up so you couldn't carry it, but might be able to bounce around past it.)

Don't know how to answer your other question.  I think it's okay for bunkers to yield all sorts of different penalty values.  If they were all the same value then it would be easier to sort out the optimum strategy.  I am partial to the randomly severe bunkers at Pacific Dunes, but I do know that on most courses those would not be accepted as fair.  In fact, I am constantly surprised that more people do not mark down the course because of the severity of some of those bunkers.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom...They just removed one at the 16th on Sunningdale Old.