The joy of hidden bunkers

[Sean_A]

Sean

I wouldn't classify the bunker on the 3rd at Lederach as blind. It is clearly visible from the adjacent 2nd tee. One would have to have a severe case of short term memory loss to forget that it's there some 50y short of the green.

Steve

While playing the hole its a blind bunker.  There is no other way to describe it.  I recall seeing the bunker while on the 2nd tee, but I couldn't tell its relative position to what my shot choices would be.

In any case, I have no problem with this sort of thing and I don't think anybody else should either.  Centre-line bunkers are often the best placed bunkers because they offer more choices in how to deal with them and they often guard the ideal land area best.  If we accept this notion and we also accept that its ok to have blind elements to the game then I don't see what the problem is.  

Blind or no, Lederach is one of the best bunkered courses I know of.  It gets the maximum impact from the least amount of sand and that should be the goal when an archie is creating a bunker scheme.  Unfortunately, this is so far from the norm that people don't even understand what the purpose of a bunker should be.


Tom D's response stunned me.  Are there archies out there who don't build certain elements (which they think are good) because they are afraid people won't get it and then change it? Or is it more a case of the archie isn't sure the element in question is a good idea?


Ciao    

[Ally Mcintosh]

The 12th hole at Portmarnock Links... Designed by Stan Eby...

A few years after it opened, I noticed a new bunker put in on the 12th hole... This one was completely blind off the tee and built backwards (as Dean mentions above) with a small sod wall on the near side and a very low lip on the far side... Probably about 300 yards off the back tee and very reachable in suitable links conditions...

I'm afraid I don't like it at all... The fairway is not wide and this bunker effectively represents a penal cross bunker to halt long drives... It is by no means a centreline bunker with strategic options either side...

In principle I'm OK with the idea but I'm not big on it... I prefer blindness to scare golfers (tee shots, approaches) whilst actually not being all that penal... e.g. blind tees shots over ridges to wide open fairways with little chance of a lost ball...

[Wade Whitehead]

To clarify: A "blind" bunker is a bunker that isn't visible, even though terrain immediately around (and in front of) it is, yes?  We're not talking about bunkers hidden by hills and such, I don't think.

I don't remember any blind bunkers at Royal New Kent, but I believe there are a couple at Tot Hill Farm, including, I believe, the scar bunker immediately behind a green that's gotten some attention.

WW

[Dan Herrmann]

The only problem I see with those bunkers is that there is too much rough around them.  The fairway cut should go right to the top edge of the bunker face.

Greg - I sould explain more about the bunker that was the inspiration for this thread (pictured above).
When the course was first built, this pair of hidden bunkers was actually in the rough.  The fairway pinched narrower in that area and, honestly, the bunkers weren't very much in play.

During one of their visits with Bruce Cadenelli, (our head greenkeeper), Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner thought it'd be good to extend the fairway to the left and bring those bunkers into play.  It was a lot of fun seeing that painted white line where they drew the new fairway line.

After installing a couple of spriklers, the task began to cut down what was rough to become new fairway.  The fairway became playable after a month or so, and BOY did it make a difference.  Not only did it bring the bunkers into play, it provided a new risk/reward opportunity.  By hitting your 2nd shot (it's a shortish par 5) to the left of the bunkers, you have the opportunity to take advantage of a newly discovered speed slot that propels your ball toward the front of the green.  The risk - if you're too short, your ball may well bound right down into the bunkers.

The change has been universally praised by the members.

And WW - This bunker really is completely blind.  And it's the only blind bunker on the course.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Are hidden bunkers really hidden after the first play?

If one has a caddie, yardage book or GPS are they really hidden?

[Dan Herrmann]

Steve,
Even though I know it's there, it's still up to me to decide if the risk is worth the reward - every time I play the hole.  I find the hidden bunker to be just as (if not) more effective than a traditional fairway bunker, in large part because it tends to capture balls like a black hole in space.

[JESII]

Dan,

Shouldn't your title include the words "just missing" in between OF and HIDDEN?

[Norbert P]

  Why is there rough around the bunkers?  Fairway height turf would be more effective for ball collection. Is it to introduce the tall grass recovery shot?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D's response stunned me.  Are there archies out there who don't build certain elements (which they think are good) because they are afraid people won't get it and then change it? Or is it more a case of the archie isn't sure the element in question is a good idea?
  

Sean:

Stunned?  Really?  Do you think there is any other reason you don't see that sort of feature from Tom Fazio or Rees Jones or most other designers?

Isn't one of the ways a good idea is judged is whether it stands the test of time?

[Ian Larson]

I agree that there is too much rough around them. At least mow it down to where the face meets the fairway.

Personally I love it but Tom has a great point with it not being accepted here in the states.

Thinking out loud here....could something be said about blind bunkers that aren't avoided will collect shots, but to make them more accepted here in the states that it would be wise to have them reversed with the flared side to the back and low side to the front? Perhaps an ideal situation for one being on a downslope of a fairway? Thus the bunker is still functioning for it's purpose but not royally screwing the golfer with advancing his shot by having a steep face to manuever over? When I think of hidden centerline bunkers I think of the very penal sod faces in the UK, these bunkers that Gil did seem to have the same effect on strategy just not being so damn penal.

[Dan Herrmann]

The photo is from a funny angle.  The rough in reality isn't nearly as long as it looks.  In fact, my question when we first talked about was "I want to make sure we don't find a ball in the rough giving a steep downhill lie facing a bunker below."

I've never seen a ball get caught in that rough.

And the bunkers are easy from which to escape; difficult from which to score well.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

The 12th hole at Portmarnock Links... Designed by Stan Eby...

Ally,

Do you mean the course of the bunker? Wasn't the course was "designed" by Bernhard Langer?

Dónal.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom D's response stunned me.  Are there archies out there who don't build certain elements (which they think are good) because they are afraid people won't get it and then change it? Or is it more a case of the archie isn't sure the element in question is a good idea?
  

Sean:

Stunned?  Really?  Do you think there is any other reason you don't see that sort of feature from Tom Fazio or Rees Jones or most other designers?

Isn't one of the ways a good idea is judged is whether it stands the test of time?

Come on Tom, how many courses aren't changed over the years? Even the really top ones do. I am struggling to think of even one.

[Tom MacWood]

I'm not a fan. Blind shots are another story - there is sense of excitement and adventure with the potential peril of a blind shot over a hill or dune. Hitting a drive or shot onto nondescript unguarded fairway, only to find your ball lying in a hidden hazard does not do much for me. I hate unseen hazards behind greens too - bad design IMO.

[Sean_A]

Tom D's response stunned me.  Are there archies out there who don't build certain elements (which they think are good) because they are afraid people won't get it and then change it? Or is it more a case of the archie isn't sure the element in question is a good idea?
  

Sean:

Stunned?  Really?  Do you think there is any other reason you don't see that sort of feature from Tom Fazio or Rees Jones or most other designers?

Isn't one of the ways a good idea is judged is whether it stands the test of time?

Tom

I hadn't considered why many archies don't step out of the design by numbers box other than they are giving the customer what he wants and archies believe they are delivering the best product they can. 

I do agree that one of the ways to judge good architecture is does it stand up over time, but for this to be true we have to consider who is doing the judging.  We all know of regretable bulldozed features that should have stood the test of time. 

Tommy Mac

Assuming the design doesn't cause some sort of drainage or infrastructure problem etc, there is no such thing as bad design.  There is design we like, design we are indifferent about and design we don't like. 

Ciao


 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The 12th hole at Portmarnock Links... Designed by Stan Eby...

Ally,

Do you mean the course of the bunker? Wasn't the course was "designed" by Bernhard Langer?

Dónal.

Donal... I mean the course... If we can't give credit where it's due on this website then there's no hope... I have been informed that the bunker was designed by Ken Kearney... I don't know Ken and I'm sure he does great work... I just don't think this bunker adds anything to the hole (and is therefore unnecessary)... The idea of blind bunkers I don't mind one bit though

Tom D's response stunned me.  Are there archies out there who don't build certain elements (which they think are good) because they are afraid people won't get it and then change it? Or is it more a case of the archie isn't sure the element in question is a good idea?
  

Sean:

Stunned?  Really?  Do you think there is any other reason you don't see that sort of feature from Tom Fazio or Rees Jones or most other designers?

Isn't one of the ways a good idea is judged is whether it stands the test of time?

Come on Tom, how many courses aren't changed over the years? Even the really top ones do. I am struggling to think of even one.

Jon, maybe Tom is referring to pressures to change within a very short time period of coure opening, usually with the same architect that designed the course... thus giving the "impression" that the architect made a mistake, is indecisive and has to climb down... changes years after made by different club committees / architects are an entirely different beast... Of course, I could be wrong but these seem like fundamental differences in my book...

Although I am interested in Tom referring to the Rees Jones and Tom Fazios of this world not building blind bunkers for these reasons... I don't know Fazio or Jones... but I do know that certain designers I know wouldn't even grasp the concept of building a blind centreline bunker, regardless of client preferences

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,

I think you will find that quite a few of the great courses were tweaked, at times quite a lot, by their GCAs. Pinehirst 2 comes to mind. Not trying something because it might not work is at some point going to lead to repetition though I am sure Tom D won't fall into this trap

[Ally Mcintosh]

John,

I think that architects had much more freedom in days gone past to "tweak" their own courses... there was the old "add bunkers where there are most divots" argument...

I think it is much more difficult in this contractual day and age for architects to tweak their course within the first couple of years of opening, especially if it means removing features (e.g. blind bunkers) rather than adding features... It creates a bad perception...

DMK were in softening some of their features on the Castle Course, probably at the request of the Links Trust which was probably because of adverse public reaction. They didn't exactly advertise the fact though...

There's a little bit of supposition here - it would be interesting to hear other's opinions...

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

The 12th hole at Portmarnock Links... Designed by Stan Eby...

Ally,

Do you mean the course of the bunker? Wasn't the course was "designed" by Bernhard Langer?

Dónal.

Donal... I mean the course... If we can't give credit where it's due on this website then there's no hope... I have been informed that the bunker was designed by Ken Kearney... I don't know Ken and I'm sure he does great work... I just don't think this bunker adds anything to the hole (and is therefore unnecessary)... The idea of blind bunkers I don't mind one bit though

Ally, I was just wondering who Stan Eby was. I didn't realised he had been involved in the design of the course. His name is never mentioned with regard to Portmarnock. I suppose it's no more than we can expect, considering the God like status professional golfers are given.

I'm not at all keen on having blind hazards. In general, when a golfer has a blind shot, the landing zone is usually devoid of hazards and that's they way it should be. I enjoy blind shots (like the Dell and the Klondyke), but to place a bunker in the landing zone of a blind shot is a bit pointless to me. What is the purpose of the hidden bunker? Is it to add a bit of novelty? When a bunker is in full view and situated in the middle of a fairway, the player has all the information he needs to plan his route. Blink shots are tough enough, without adding mischievous bunkers.

Dónal.

[Sean_A]

I think folks have the wrong idea about Lederach's 3rd.  The shot is not blind, but the bunker is blind and in the middle of the fairway.  The bunker rests in a fold with its lower lip toward the green and high side built into the fold closer to the tee. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Donal,

Apologies for not being clear - Stan Eby is a / the senior architect with European Golf Design (EGD) who designed the course in collaboration with Bernhard Langer... EGD have designed other Irish courses... Stan also designed the Carton House Montgomerie course... Tim Lobb (before he formed TPL) designed the O'Meara and I think Moyvalley (Darren Clarke)...

All of these courses had very nominal "signature" designers so I don't think it unfair to drop them when talking on a forum such as this...

[Tom_Doak]

Jon W:

That "nothing is perfect" argument is most often espoused by architects who are very modest, or who resent others who are more self-assured.  Personally, I think it's somewhere between embarrassing and criminal to be going back to a course after 2-3 years and having to make changes because something didn't work out ... unless the architect was spending his own money building version 1.0.

I understand that golf courses are living things that change over time, but that is a different topic.  Maybe Nicklaus can get away with revisions after 1-2 years, but if it was anybody else, Jack would be the first to say the architect must not have known what he was doing!

Personally, I am not a big fan of blind bunkers in the fairway.  I have seen places where they work great (St. Andrews), but they work great when everybody knows they are there and the caddie can direct you away from them ... in which case, what's the point of their being blind?  So I would only use the feature to screw with the heads of great players.  [But they are the first to complain, and the most likely to be taken seriously.]  In the end, it is all a matter of opinion whether a feature is a good one or not.  The only chance an architect has got is to build what he believes in and defend his choices forthrightly.  If that includes blind bunkers, you should just be ready to defend your choices that much more often!!

[Sean_A]

Jon W:

That "nothing is perfect" argument is most often espoused by architects who are very modest, or who resent others who are more self-assured.  Personally, I think it's somewhere between embarrassing and criminal to be going back to a course after 2-3 years and having to make changes because something didn't work out ... unless the architect was spending his own money building version 1.0.

I understand that golf courses are living things that change over time, but that is a different topic.  Maybe Nicklaus can get away with revisions after 1-2 years, but if it was anybody else, Jack would be the first to say the architect must not have known what he was doing!

Personally, I am not a big fan of blind bunkers in the fairway.  I have seen places where they work great (St. Andrews), but they work great when everybody knows they are there and the caddie can direct you away from them ... in which case, what's the point of their being blind?  So I would only use the feature to screw with the heads of great players.  [But they are the first to complain, and the most likely to be taken seriously.]  In the end, it is all a matter of opinion whether a feature is a good one or not.  The only chance an architect has got is to build what he believes in and defend his choices forthrightly.  If that includes blind bunkers, you should just be ready to defend your choices that much more often!!

Tom

You have to go back an awful lot of times to be confident of where all the blind bunkers are at TOC.  For the tourista - they don't know and that is the point - anxiety off the tee.  Plus, I expect nobody felt like building the tees up so the bunkers could be seen.  Thats what happens today, far, far too often as to be mundane.

For a course that is meant to be damn near ideal, there is an awful lot about it that archies won't copy.  Why is that?

Ciao

[Niall C]

I'm not a fan. Blind shots are another story - there is sense of excitement and adventure with the potential peril of a blind shot over a hill or dune. Hitting a drive or shot onto nondescript unguarded fairway, only to find your ball lying in a hidden hazard does not do much for me. I hate unseen hazards behind greens too - bad design IMO.

Sean

I'm with Tommy Mac on this one. I also think its bad design, maybe not technically incompetent but then a golf course architect is mean't to be more than just an engineer. From an artistic or strategic point of view the idea does nothing for me and I suspect if I played it often it would irritate me greatly.

As TM says I blind shot can be exillerating, having struck the shot and then gone over the rise to see where the ball has ended up. If you are playing the course for the first time this sense of excitement is more intense, and so would the level of annoyance if you hit what you thought was a good shot into the middle of the fairway to find it had actually landed in a bunker.

In subsequent rounds I suspect you would either need to know you could fly it quite easily or just play well away. If it was more borderline on whether you could carry it I can't see the thrill in taking it on. To me the sense of challenge would be missing and it would be more a hit and hope.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I'm on film now talking about just that feature while walking The Old Course ... but you won't be able to see it for another 12 months or so.

To me, at least, the blindness is a less-than-ideal feature of those bunkers on The Old Course.  It would be much more ideal (for strategic purposes) if you could see them all, but it wasn't practical there.  (The fact that you cannot see them from the tee allows them to be very small without looking silly and out of scale in the landscape, also.)  So local knowledge has to suffice.  And I am certainly not against a course which rewards local knowledge, by any means.

I love The Old Course; I think I can safely say that I love it as much or more than any other living architect I know.  I love that it's closed on Sundays and kids play football on the 14th fairway and dogs try to hurdle the smaller bunkers; and I love that it can be played backwards, which is where a lot of those blind bunkers actually originated.  I love that they didn't build the tees up, and I'm not saying they should so you could see more of the bunkers, as (you are correct) most modern courses would do. 

But do you really think the anxiety off the tee at The Old Course because people don't know it is a GOOD thing?  To me it robs them of all the strategic interest of the course, and gives that all over to the caddie.  Anxiety just makes them make bad swings, whereas most of the good players listen to their caddy, pick a line and fire away.  I know when I caddied there, it took me a while to learn that I just shouldn't tell people about the Sutherland on #15 or the bunkers in #12, because it just made them anxious ... so I gave them a line and let them hit freely, and trusted not many of them would find those bunkers.

If I had my own piece of flat, sandy dunesland, you'd probably get to see something more like St. Andrews than anyone else has built.  But I still rely on clients to pay me to design courses, and I've never had a client who would go for blind fairway bunkers en masse ... not Mike Keiser, not Julian Robertson, not Rupert O'Neal, none of them.  And I have not played a new course in many years that had a blind fairway bunker that struck me as a cool feature.  Maybe, someday, I'll find the right spot to build a bunch of them; but it's pretty far down my list of ideas to try somewhere.