[JimFatsi]

 whats wrong with these bunkers

[Alex Miller]

They look silly with higher lips away from the green even though they sit well below the putting surface!

Also, it's silly puddy, not sand. Is that's what's wrong? 

[David Stamm]

Is this a trick question? 

[Ben Sims]

I'm echoing Mr. Stamm.

Though the thing that grabs my attention the most is exactly what Alex mentioned.  Those mounds behind the bunkers serve what purpose?  I'm confused.  

[Chris Cupit]

They appear to be drainage nightmares. 

[Mark McKeever]

The mounds that surround them don't seem to fit correctly.

Mark

[Jay Flemma]

well don't keep us all in suspense...whose are they?  where are they?

[Matt Day]

was it one larger bunker split into three?

[Bradley Anderson]

There's nothing wrong with "those" bunkers, because there's nothing wrong with any bunker.   

[TEPaul]

There's nothing wrong with those bunkers unless you happen to think the guy who created them and the people who like them have bad taste!

"Golf and golf course architecture is a great big world and there is plenty of room in it for everyone."

(The Big World Theory)

[Ian Larson]

My own personal way of walking myself through the thought process of critiquing architecture is...

1. Does it fit with it's surrounds

2. Could that happen in nature

I don't think there's too much terribly wrong. I don't think it fits PERFECTLY with it's surroundings but I can't really see it's surroundings. Could this happen in nature? Heck yeah! A green site could be placed in front of some hillocks that have collected sand in it's swales. The mounds to the back of the swale aren't terribly bad either...would a shot that is severely overhit not only have a shot from a hazard but those mounds are helping to make sure the mis-hit shot is from a hazard? It looks like nice manicured grass there, I'd rather be behind those bunkers than in them.

Besides that I see bunkers that may have been renovated and split up or possibly what was meant to be grass bunkers that they later added sand to in the bottoms? Somethings not meshing perfectly with the design. It looks like a thought and then an afterthought...

[paul cowley]

I agree with Tom................any of the various styles are appropriate if they fit the eye of the designer....some are better looking than others....but in my opinion they need to meet two criteria to be considered successful:

-They have to drain well.

-They should not require excessive maintenance practices to achieve a certain 'look'.

Their quantity, size and strategic placement is another topic altogether.

I feel the bunkers shown appear to meet the criteria, and I don't see anything wrong with them.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Paul,
As Chris said earlier, it really does look like a drainage nightmare from the photos. You've got water pouring into them from a couple of sides. This can't be an ideal situation?

[paul cowley]

Paul,
As Chris said earlier, it really does look like a drainage nightmare from the photos. You've got water pouring into them from a couple of sides. This can't be an ideal situation?

Jim....it really depends on on whether or not they have adequate under drainage.

From the photo it seems that the surrounding contours might be diverting any major sheet flow of water from entering the bunker complex....so all the water entering the sand areas is coming from the grass faces....which being grass aren't prone to erosion.

Combine that with relatively flat bunker floors, the bunkers are probably are not labor intensive........assuming they have adequate under drains of course!

[Mike Hendren]

These bunkers are similar to Rees Jones' work at Belle Meade CC in Nashville with the muscled backsides and resulting slight downward slope toward the green creating depth.

Mike

[Chris Cupit]

Paul,

You are absolutely right--the drainage may be perfect for those bunkers and I may have been too hydrophobic given that Atlanta has seen nearly 20 inches of rain since September 1st and I still shell shocked from the damage.

We were fortunate and have excellent bunkers ourselves constructed using the "Billy Fuller" bunker method and despite the massive flooding we had only one bunker that suffered any real damage and most required very little extra attention.

So, they may drain very well.  But, they do look as if they form saucers and collect water from multiple directions and based on the one pic, it looks like they could form bird baths given a heavy rain.

The topic asked what's "wrong" with the bunkers so I was looking for something to be "wrong" and that was my first thought.  I couldn't really see enough of the hole or know its par, length, width etc. to really decide if I thought they were "properly" positioned.  Again, though, you are right that they could drain just fine.

[Kalen Braley]

I tend to agree with David and Ben in asking whats the catch.

I think a better question is... "Do these bunkers fit your personal preferences for bunkers?" 

Its hard to tell because all we see are the bunkers and we don't see the big picture. Even though they look odd to me, it could be that they fit in nice with the particular hole they are found on.  From the fairway they are probably blind as they appear to be below the grade of the ground around it.

My biggest "non-preference" is that they are shallow looking....and to my eye the only shallow bunkers that look neat are the large waste-stlye bunkers.  Additionally throw in the fact that the sand is whitter than white and I'm guessing they won't be high on my personal interest list.

Can we get some other pics that show them more in context with their surrounds?

[Adam Clayman]

Michael Hendren cites a specific Archie. I've also seen this type of "signature" from Art Hills.

I disagree with Ian that there's not enough of a hint at the surrounds. The ground beyond the constructed features shows some subtle movement, which is what has led those who responded "they don't fit" to do so.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Don't know if anything's "wrong" with them as we can't fully determine their function, for example the playing corridor and angle of the green.  Aesthetically speaking, they remind me of old CB Macdonald bunkers that have been smoothed or neutered in a sense by modern maintenance and agronomy; from what I've seen in those cases the modern versions have less scruffiness and texture and tend to be be smaller.  Also, whenever I see three bunkers in one footprint I tend to think somewhere down the line someone took one big bunker and for whatever reason decided to make three bunkers.

And now for my comments to be revealed as a tale told by an idiot...

[Norbert P]

They're a fugly thoughtless afterthought.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()