Fairway bunker depth

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

I'm not arguing for complete randomness, just for a little variety.  Becuase something "is" (i.e. bunkers built according to formulas for depth and slope and position from the green) doesn't mean it should be, does it?

I like the fairly recent pot bunker on the right hand side of the 16th fairway at Pebble Beach.  You know it's there (or should, shivas!) and that it's going to cost you at least a 1/2 a shot, so you try to avoid it!  When Watson went in there on the 70th hole of the '82 Open, the bogey it created also created the context for the drama of his chip in on 17 a few minutes later.  I also like the occasional flat greenside bunker which puts the thought of putting or chipping out into your head, usually (in my case) with disastrous consequences.

I do know that guys like Jeff Brauer, who do this GCA thing for a living rather than as a pastime have to be fairly consistent to satisfy the demands of their markets, but I'm glad to hear that he throws in a ringer or two now and then, because it's that sort of thing that makes golf a bit more interesting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I think we would all agree that a little change of pace, or depth adds interest, but other than on a penal golf course, isn't there a need for a pattern of design consistent with promoting equitable shot value ?

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

I guess we'll never agree :

I don't design my green sizes based on the lengths of the approach shot.  

Rarely, anyway.

Yes, of course, there are common sense exeptions, like the ones you mention, or the 17th at TPC, etc...  Those are pretty rare, though.

Let's just say that "length of approach" is somewhere in the back of my mind when designing a green complex, but it's probably item #47 of 82, if you see what I mean.

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but I can't get my brain around the words "equitable shot value."  To me "equity" implies "fairness."  Surely you are not saying that golf should be "fair!?"  Please enlighten me.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

Insert "consistent" delete "equitable"

Jeremy,

Are you saying:

That the size and configuration of your greens bears absolutely no relationship to the length of the incoming shot ?

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

Yes*

*Most of the times, because I feel that it is the responsibility of the golfer to adapt his shot to the natural green, not the architect’s responsibility to adapt his green to the golfer's preferred shot.  “Long shot big green, short shot little green” is not something I believe in.  I believe in Fair shot values, not in Consistent shot values.  But obviously, I say “most of the time” because I won't do something that's ridiculous or stupidly unplayable.

[Richard_Goodale]

Sorry, Patrick, but I'm pretty thick today.  The only definition that comes to my mind when I read the words "promoting consistent shot value" is "strategery."

I really do not understand what you are saying, but I'm pretty sure that if you explain it to me I will not agree with what you say!  I know we (including me, from time to time) throw around the words "shot value(s)" very freely, but the more I think about it, it is a meaningless combination of words, like "holistic competitive differentiation."  Every shot on every hole on every course has a value.  It is, usually, 1 (one).

If this is all too elementary, please feel to answer this off-line so the cognoscenti need not be bored.  I am really trying to learn, not be persnickety.

Cheers

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich and Jeremy,

If you go to the "Courses by Country" section, and then to
Boca Rio, you will see a little of what I am alluding to on the very first picture.

The front of the fairway bunker on the left is about 135 yards from the green.  In 1991 there was a bank/knoll/knob in the front of that bunker.  There was some depth to that bunker.
You will note on the right side of the bunkers some knobs still exist.  But, a subsequent green chairman softened the bunker to such a degree that you could hit a three wood out of it if you wanted.  A topped or poorly hit shot will now reach the green.

On the sides, some impediments to the flight of the ball remain, but, in the front of the bunker they have been removed.  

Wouldn't a golfer who has hit into this bunker be faced with a more demanding shot if the face/lip/bank of the bunker had remained intact.  Wouldn't the old bunker offer more risk reward to the golfers previous shot ?  Has risk been eliminated on the previous shot due to the bunkers benign nature ?

Wouldn't the shot values on this hole be enhanced by having this bunker deeper ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I don't know why any particular course should have consistent shot values from hole to hole, hence the ringers from time to time.  Obviously, that greens chair at Boco Rio was in that bunker, couldn't get out, declared it "unfair" and softened it.  In some old golf book, an old Scot was heard to say "Yesterday I cleared the Bonnie Brook, but today, I hit right in that damn sewer!" (Insert your own scottish brogue here)

Jeremy,

Granted, green size has lots to do with site scale, room available (so that's why this long par 4 has such a small green) environmental factors, variety, etc. but I wouldn't put target size in the second half of considerations, would you? What are the first 46 things you consider?

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

Looked at the photo, and I'm still confused.  Yes, the shot from the bunker is notably easier than it would be if there was a lip, but even if it had a lip it would be a lot easier than if the bunker were 10 feet deep, etc. etc.  What does this prove except you have at least one fairly benign bunker at Boca Rio?

Or, are you saying that there is some sort of absolute "shot value" for a bunker 135 yards from an open fronted green?  Maybe that someone with a 4.8 index should be able to hit the ball within 23.7 feet of the flagstick (pace Dennis Harwood) 32.9% of the time, or something like that?  And that if a bunker falls outside the standard deviation of these (or whatever) parameters it somehow does not "promote consistent shot values?"

I sincerely hope not.

PS--wonder what old CB was thinking when he sized the "Short" green at NGLA?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

It's amazing how many Green Chairman, Presidents, Board members and members want to alter a golf course to suit their game's needs.

It is an unending battle to prevent them from forcing their game upon the golf course.

You hit the nail on the head, both he and his wife probably found many bunkers, not to their liking, and changed them for the worse.  And, I think it might have been done surreptitiously.

But, that's just my opinion.  

[Ken Bakst]

Pat

Following up on Jeff B's thoughts, what was CBM thinking when he built the bottle hole bunkers at NGLA?  And come to think of it, how would you characterize the pot bunker on #10 at GCGC?  And what do you think of many of the bunkers at TOC?  Or how about the pot bunkers on #18 at Gullane #1?  Or some of the bunkers at the corner of the dogleg on #5 at Atlantic?  And as long as I'm on Atlantic, isn't one of the smallest greens there on the longest par 4 on the course?  And with Augusta on the mind, what about the depth of the bunker on its 1st hole (particularly on the green side)?

I don't have time to go on and on, but I'm sure I could.  Do you get my point?  Applying a formulaic approach to gca, at least IMHO, does not lend to great results.  And I believe that all great courses share a sort of random nature to their design, not an orderly one.  In fact, the reason that the manufactured features at NGLA work so well in my opinion is because they appear so random.  Does that make any sense to you?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick Mucci,
I don’t know about chaotic, but I certainly don’t want things orderly. How’s that?

Would you call the back 9 at Pac Dunes chaotic? I’d call it taking advantage of what the land gives. You’ve heard enough from Jeremy, Rich and Ken, so I wont go on and on, but outside of agronomic necessity, I don’t like formulas applied to GCA.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

As has been already revealed, there are numerous famous examples of bunkers that thankfully do not follow a formula of 'consistent shot value'. A few more that come to mind are the 4th at Royal St. Georges, 2nd at Cypress Point and the 6th at Crystal Downs - St.Enodoch, Muirfield, Portrush. The severity of these hazards has created some of the more exhilirating shots in golf. I think the most interesting courses always keep you guessing and off guard because you don't know what to expect - they don't follow a predicatable formula.

And speeking of Boca Rio, water comes into play on a number of tee shots. How do you compare the consistent shot value of a water hazard to a severe bunker?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, this is the type of discussion I love!  

I had an idream of this group being present at the writing of the constitution of the good ole' U S of A in 178(8?)  When T.J. stood up to declare the need for a new constitution, that would act as the guiding force while deciding all future laws in this country, the GCA contingent stood up, and walked out in protest, after the other delegates refused their plea to "avoid any guiding principles, and just let individual circumstances decide in each case!"  Oh yeah, on the way out they started calling Jefferson nasty names, of which "slave boinker" is the least offensive.

I don't think there is anything wrong with formula, or a strong design philosophy (ie the constitution) or rules of thumb in design, as long as the architect is flexible enought to make one one of the rules is to "break the other rules as you see fit."  The golden age guys had them, or they couldn't have pumped out articles entited "the ideal golf course" and such.

My old mentor had the philosophy - which I share - that you should establish some rules to ensure basic playability.  You can break them, but if you break them too often, your course can cross the line into something pretty goofy and unpopular.  The dilemma is similar to those of football coaches, in that you have to fight the tendency to become to conservative over the years, always making the "safe" choice.

I don't know what "consistent shot values" means, or if it is necessary.  Using the bunker depth as an example, lets say my "formula" is one foot of depth for every iron out, ie 9 feet for a 9 iron, etc. on the recovery line.  If all bunkers followed that formula, they would be of different depth, but have exactly the same shot value, if you accept the basic premise that that formula for total depth (combined with steepness of slope as described before) makes each recovery shot about a 50-50 proposition.

If that is my rule, how often should I break it?  Should it be in force all the time, or half the time, for the 14 long tee shots?  Actually, it seems to me that an "ideal course", if the site conditions allow it, would be for about half to meet any given basic criteria, or 8, with the remaining six shots either guarded by hazards easier or harder than the formula for variety (ie - inconsistent shot values) to set up different shot thoughts for players, like "This tee shot is a breather", or "I better be extra careful here."

A formula? yes.  But also a formula for variety, rythm and balance.  I think competitive golfers (not Tigre, but the 1-12 handicap guys and gals) notice the differences in things like that.

I thnk what architecture buffs really object to is not some idea of appropriateness/fairness in design, but when those ideas are forced on the landscape unnaturally.  For example, if I chose to put a really deep fairway bunker on a flat site, necessitating 10 foot of fill to the top of the bunker,  and followed up by deciding to place a shallow one on a steep site, also necessitating 10 of fill on the base of the bunker.

Had I (which I would) reversed those to fit the natural landscape, I would have natural looking bunkers, good playability, and a few tee shots that make the golfer go "HMM..." because of the hazards, no?

Just some early morning, pre coffee musings.  As such, if you don't agree, I can always plead the fifth!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

What I'm saying is, Shouldn't the bunker I referenced at Boca Rio be deeper because of the relatively short distance to the green ?   Said another way, if this bunker was 230 yards from the green, excessive depth would convert it to penal.

That the value of the shot confronted should dictate in general terms the nature of the bunker design/configuration.

A two iron from a bunker 210 yards from the green is far more difficult than a wedge from a bunker 100 yards from the green, hence the impediment to the flight of the ball should be adjusted.

With respect to # 6 at NGLA I believe we already exempted the five or six greens within that green on another thread.

Ken Bakst,

The bunkers you cite are on Penal golf courses, which on an earlier post were exempted from the discussion.

I view the bunker at the dogleg on #5 at Atlantic as a safety net, rather than a hazard.  Absent the bunker, you're playing a lost ball or from the declared hazard.

I asked previously, if anyone could cite five courses, Penal exempted, where bunker depth for two, three and four iron shots are deeper than bunker shots for eight, nine and wedge shots.  So far, despite everyone railing against formulaic design, noone has come up with five examples.

I'm not favoring a cookie cutter approach, but in the play of a non-penal golf course I believe there is a clear and consistent relationship to the length of the shot to the green, and the depth of the bunkers, and I don't think that diminishes the bunkers, the holes or the golf courses involved.

Tom MacWood,

At Boca Rio, on how many tee shots is water a factor ?
How many bunkers are in play at Boca Rio and what is the relative difficulty on each one ?  And.... what is the demand on the shot where bunkers can be in play, versus the water ?

[Ken Bakst]

Pat

I am just questioning your basic premise that a 210 fairway bunker shot should necessarily allow you to hit a long iron, etc.  A pot bunker in such a location that requires a short iron recovery in and of itself does not make the design "penal" but perhaps you think otherwise.

I thought I knew the difference between "penal" and "strategic" golf courses, but if you don't think NGLA, GCGC or TOC, etc. are "strategic" then I need you to do some explaining for me before I can respond.  Can you please clarify your thoughts on penal/strategic designs before we continue this discussion?

And by the way, I think Tom MacWood was asking you how you would compare a water hazard, from which you must take a drop with a penalty stroke, and a bunker from which you can't play a full shot to the green.  Any thoughts there?  And please don't tell me that you think a water hazard in and of itself makes a design penal!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

If you consider the Old Course and the NGLA penal what courses do you place in the non-penal catagory? Boca Rio?

From the aerial I'd guess there are four or five tees shots where water is a factor, for sure at least two based on Ran's profile - #1 and #18. But it really doesn't matter, pick another golf course if you wish, we can all think of numerous examples of water being a primary hazard. How do you compare the consistent shot value of water to bunkers (penal or non-penal)? If you are opposed to severe sand hazards where a long apporach is necessary (preventing a reasonable opportunity to reach the target) then you must really be opposed to the use water.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Pat,

By wishing to exclude so-called "penal" architecture, you seem to be admitting that there are bunkers out there who's depth has no real relation to the shot length.  

That's basically what I've been saying all along.  What, pray tell, is wrong with what you call a "penal" bunker?

And call it what you want, I'm still gonna build it if it looks good.

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

You write, "That the value of the shot confronted should dictate in general terms the nature of the bunker design/configuration."

If I am reading that correctly, I think it is similar to what I wrote in my first post when I wrote, "I prefer to let the specific shot dictate"... the bunker depth as opposed to some consistent rule of thumb.

I think some may have a more consistent rule of thumb (if I am reading Jeff Bauer correctly) but there really is not rule of thumb across the board. I know because I have worked with people who do not follow a rule of thumb. I have a great example of a hole with varying bunker depths at Bayside in Nebraska. It is a 600 yard par 5 with lots of sand. The fairway was built by leveling off a ridge, so it runs along the top of the flattened ridge lengthwise. Anyway, at about 250 yards from the green, there are bunkers that are 9 inches deep just several feet away from bunkers that are 7 feet deep. It works because of the way the deeper bunkers hug the hillside and because of the way the bunkers unfold throughout the hole. And on top of that, there is a pot bunker some 60 yards short of the 9 inches bunkers that is approaching 3 feet deep. I have photos but they are not digital or I could show you exactly what I am talking about.

Bottom line is that there just is not the rule of thumb you are seeking across the board. Too much individuality in the way holes are designed. And beware the construction crew sent out to build bunkers based on a rule of thumb. The uniformity might be a negative. Interesting question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Bakst,

I never advocated absolutes.

You've played an abundant number of golf courses.
If you could cite five courses in the U.S. where the depth of fairway bunkers on par 4's at 210 yards are consistently deeper than the bunkers at 160 yards, which in turn are consistently deeper than the bunkers at 100 yards, it would be helpful for me to understand your position.  It has been my limited experience that in general, the progression on bunker depth is directly related to the distance the bunker lies from the green.  Are there exceptions, sure, but the body of evidence points in the other direction, that there is a consistent pattern.

I'm not sure that I would classify GCGC as more strategic then penal.  Certainly there are elements of both, but I think the course is more weighted to the Penal side.  
NGLA combines both brilliantly, but how many NGLA's are there ?
TOC is an anomaly since its original, and until recent, routing was the reverse of current play, hence TOC is in a category all its own when discussing fairway bunkers.

You and others may have missed it in my original post, but I eliminated water hazards and out of bounds in this thread.

But. If someone is going to expand the discussion to include water hazards on tee shots, shouldn't we include Out of Bounds as well ?  Especially since there are about two water hazards that effectively come into play at Boca Rio, six out of bounds and about 27 bunkers off the tee.  

Since there is no playable recovery from a water hazard or out of bounds, it's a non-applicable diversion, not germain to the discussion on fairway bunkers, fairway bunker configuration as it relates to depth. length of the remaining shot to the green and the concept of "shot value" from those bunkers.
  
Jeremy,

What courses have you built where the further the bunker is from the green, the deeper the bunker and the more difficult the shot, on a consistent basis.

Mike O'Neil,

I would ask you a related question.  What five golf courses have you played where the near green fairway bunkers are shallow and the fairway bunkers consistently get deeper and deeper as you move back toward the tee ?

I can't think of any, but then again, my experience is limited.

I'm puzzled as to why this seems so alien to some.

Is it formulaic or common sense ?
Is it formulaic or practical from a playability perspective ?
Is it formulaic or does it allow the architecture to blend
   harmoniously with risk/reward and shot values ?

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

I think you might be able to argue that a lot of the courses out there are as you say. It is not an alien idea. I don't have a problem with such a progression per se. I am just saying that there is not a rule of thumb. I do not have an answer to your original question. I don't think one exists, though Jeff may have some percentages and slopes and such that he can continue to offer.

I actually think that if anything, the most consistent approach to bunker depth tends to be cutting them to the same basic depth regardless of their proximity to the green. I see more courses with the same bunker depth throughout than with the progression you describe. The bunkers at Warren golf course at Notre Dame, a Bill and Ben project, has very similar depths. The crew working for Jeff Bradley was trained and off they went. Bunker after bunker treated very similarly. Nothing wrong with that. I think it is the effect Bill and Ben were looking for. But even then there are a few exceptions on that course.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

None.

But then again, I haven't built any golf courses where the closer the bunker is from the green, the deeper the bunker and the more difficult the shot, on a consistent basis, either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

That would lead me to ask you why not.

Shouldn't a near green bunker present a more difficult shot than a ball in the rough or fairway ?

What is the function of the near green bunker ?  
If there is no challenge to the bunker shot, will that not be the prefered place for the golfer hit their ball ?

With todays choice of four hundred wedges, shouldn't a near green bunker present more than a casual nuisance, or a prefered location from which to play your next shot ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Based on your formula of placing progressively more severe bunkers closest to the target, where and how would you place water hazards?

I've looked at Boca's aerial and there appears to be more than two water hazards that would be in play off the tee for the average man or woman golfer. But no matter, how does the playibility or risk/reward factor work in those cases where water comes into play off the tee?