[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think I know of a worse description for a feature other than "random bunker".  Okay, the USGA definition of a hazard is pretty silly as well.  Do archies really want to be known for actually producing random bunkers?  It seems to me that ANYBODY can do that.  If random is what we want why hire an archie?  As a guy who likes minimal bunkering I don't like the idea of hazrads placed willy nilly.  I say make few of them, but make them fully accountable.

Sean,

If we accept that the broad spectrum of golfers, playing from different tees, play games that vary from that of other golfers, is any bunker truely "random"

Does a bunker have to have an apparent or recognized position in order to justify its existance ?

Please view an aerial of the 18th at NGLA and tell me what you think

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike,

Don't flatter yourself.  We all have formulas, even if its only to say we don't have formulas.......Even Faz says that.

And just as there can be no random bunkers once you start thinking about them, there has to be a formula once you start thinking about how you approach the design process.......your conversion has already started.

Jeff
I don't think you know enough about my work to make a comment like above.
Mike

[Sean_A]

I don't think I know of a worse description for a feature other than "random bunker".  Okay, the USGA definition of a hazard is pretty silly as well.  Do archies really want to be known for actually producing random bunkers?  It seems to me that ANYBODY can do that.  If random is what we want why hire an archie?  As a guy who likes minimal bunkering I don't like the idea of hazrads placed willy nilly.  I say make few of them, but make them fully accountable.

Sean,

If we accept that the broad spectrum of golfers, playing from different tees, play games that vary from that of other golfers, is any bunker truely "random"

Does a bunker have to have an apparent or recognized position in order to justify its existance ?

Please view an aerial of the 18th at NGLA and tell me what you think

Patrick

With very few exceptions, I think it is hard to say "random bunkering" exists - and for very good reasons. 

Its alright to have a few odd ball bunkers out there, probably because the spot and soil make it is easy to build, but I am not in favour of unjustified bunkers mainly because I don't like to see archies using bunkers so often.  Think about it.  If an archie used 100 mounds like he did 100 bunkers people would likely laugh.  That is usually the reaction I have when I see that many bunkers.  Nearly always and unless in the hands of truly exceptional archies, 100 bunkers will have the effect of being predictable.  I know folks go on about TOC's bunkering, but really, most folks just blast away and hope for the best.  The effect of fear has been nearly totally removed because there are so many blind bunkers.  Step right up and bang away - its as if folks accept they will catch a few bunkers that are seen as totally in the lap of the gods.  If a course is great 100 bunkers, it can be great with 75, 60 or even 50.  If a course is deemed great because of its prodigious number of bunkers there is something wrong with the design.   

Ciao 

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

I would suspect that Macdonald did not spend ages out at NGLA in order that bunkers may be "random," whether it's the 18th hole or otherwise.  Moreover, there is likely a difference between that which is truly random, and that which APPEARS random.  Even the patterns of the terrain on an otherwise untouched landscape (e.g. Sand Hills prior to construction), or the stars in the distant parts of the universe, are in many ways not truly random; even they are/were subject to predictable geologic and/or physical properties that led to their form or their location.  The deliberate interference and alteration of a landscape by a designer (Macdonald or otherwise) reveals their conscious desire to control the landscape, which violates any notion of true randomness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I feel a little differently about bunkers than you do.

I believe that they are "patterned"

I truely believe that GCA's must weight the challenge so as to not discourage the novice, poorer and mediocre golfer.

Picture if you will, a 24-36 handicap trying to play Pine Valley or Bethpage Black, espcially PV with its heroic carries and impossible bunkers.

If you presented the novice, poorer and mediocre golfer with the same challenge faced by the better and best golfers, they couldn't meet it and would be discouraged.

The only place where the challenge is seemingly equalized is at the green end, but then, the approaching shot is not as threatening due to distance.

In spite of my thoughts on this subject, I'm still shocked by the penal nature of the early courses in America.

Remember, the Sand Wedge didn't come into existance until approximately 1933.
With the Lob wedge debuting probably in the 80's.

Yet, courses Like Hollywood, Pine Valley, GCGC and National represented a strident challenge to the best players let alone the mediocre and poor player.

It's almost like the old designers said, "if you're going to play this game, you'd better get good..... quickly"

However, fairway WIDTH was a great architectural aid in allowing the lesser player to navigate his way around the golf course, avoiding severe bunkering.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I like the term patterned bunkers.  As you suggest, the most influential thing about Mac and ANGC was that there was virtually NO penalty for the hacks, other than they didn't hit if far enough to reach a green in regulation. Bunkers were mostly positioned to challenge the good players.  It set the stage for most design that has followed - non penal everywhere but where a good player would play.

We tend to go to tournament courses, and I think most are thinking of RTJ and Wilson and their tendency to cluster bunkers at the tournament doglegs, which really over emphasized the turn point, and pro landing areas.  But, for all other courses, those old bunkers 120 yards off the tee, whether top shot or carry bunkers back in the old days, slowly got removed for financial and speed of play reasons, as we all know.  But they may have gotten replaced a little to strenuoulsly, since then as now tournament courses affect design more than they should.

I really don't think anyone has come up with a better idea than the old ANGC flexibility idea in general for a good golf course that is also fun for the bill paying members to play. I believe we may have too strenuoulsy pursued it, designing only for tour pros who won't ever show up.  And, I will never forget an older member telling me that he paid the same dues as the whippersnappers, and felt he deserved to hit in a few bunkers, too!

So, I believe that you start with bunkering the main landing zone (which may work for all, making the big assumption people play the tee sets that correspond to their driving distance) but just be prepared to back off and vary the distance those hazards are from the tee so every one gets a chance to hit in the bunkers once in a while. 

[Tim Nugent]

Just the concept of a "Random" bunker suggests that golfers have, for too long, been fed a steady diet of "bunker the landing are.  This has evolved into an expectation that bunkers will be sited around the intended landing area.  I find this leads to predictable and boring designs.  This convention can be exploited to create false depth perception presentations by making long holes appear shorter, short holes appear longer, or the opposite - long holes appear even longer and short holes appearing even shorter. The size of the bunker has to be fine tuned to coresspond to the inrtended scheme.

Furthermore, having fairways without any bunkers can help add to this convention.  Without any predetermined markers, it's left to the golfer to determine for themselves where to land it.

[BCrosby]

The professionals here seem to agree that they should only build bunkers that have a purpose, i.e. no truly random bunkers.  But as a weekend hacker, I don't need 'truly' random bunkers; the 'appearance' of randomness can be enough for me.  Then if I should find myself in one of them, I can blame the vagaries of blind fate instead of my lousy shot-making for that result.  Every once in a while, it's good for the soul to think: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they kill us for their sport".  

Also, call me crazy, but the appearance of randomness is a more appealing/attractive appearance. And, after all, what else do we have but appearances. Live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse, as I like to say....

Peter  

The whole notion of truly random bunkering stikes me as silly. (You want random? I have an eight year old nephew who can really do random. He has the right mindset. But that is not the mindset I want to hire to design my golf course.)

I think Jeff nails it above.

But Peter's post gave me pause. I don't agree with him, but brilliant.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Nugent,

If you don't bunker the DZ, you eliiminate a good deal of the challenge unless the course has some really unusual characteristics.

Can you think of a golf course void of bunkering in the DZ.

I only know of one, my home course, Preakness Hills.

When built, it had but one fairway bunker.

Even today, seven holes do not have fairway bunkering in the DZ.

The other holes had fairway bunkering added over the years.

In fact, an interesting study would be to see how the fairway bunkering has morphed over the years.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

I like the term patterned bunkers.  As you suggest, the most influential thing about Mac and ANGC was that there was virtually NO penalty for the hacks, other than they didn't hit if far enough to reach a green in regulation. Bunkers were mostly positioned to challenge the good players.  It set the stage for most design that has followed - non penal everywhere but where a good player would play.

We tend to go to tournament courses, and I think most are thinking of RTJ and Wilson and their tendency to cluster bunkers at the tournament doglegs, which really over emphasized the turn point, and pro landing areas.  But, for all other courses, those old bunkers 120 yards off the tee, whether top shot or carry bunkers back in the old days, slowly got removed for financial and speed of play reasons, as we all know.  But they may have gotten replaced a little to strenuoulsly, since then as now tournament courses affect design more than they should.

I really don't think anyone has come up with a better idea than the old ANGC flexibility idea in general for a good golf course that is also fun for the bill paying members to play. I believe we may have too strenuoulsy pursued it, designing only for tour pros who won't ever show up.  And, I will never forget an older member telling me that he paid the same dues as the whippersnappers, and felt he deserved to hit in a few bunkers, too!

So, I believe that you start with bunkering the main landing zone (which may work for all, making the big assumption people play the tee sets that correspond to their driving distance) but just be prepared to back off and vary the distance those hazards are from the tee so every one gets a chance to hit in the bunkers once in a while. 

This is a pretty darn good post right here. This is text book stuff.

[Ben Voelker]

All clients vary of course, but us mere mortal architects are often given a target square footage of bunkers which we can use as we like.  That number (for me) has come from developers standard criteria, or a suggestion of the feasibility consultant that a public course ought to have no more than xx bunkers (usually from 20-45 with severe warnings of the business consequences of having more than 50 or 60)

Jeff,

I can't believe I didn't ask this before.  I just flew back into my native Lincoln, Nebraska and this comment came back to mind.  I always enjoyed playing at Highlands in Lincoln as a kid and especially love the 3 short par 4's on the front.  I have always loved 7 most for the risk reward option and how difficult the hole plays if you don't go for the heroic drive over the bunker.  I don't have any photos, but I copied in a satellite image of the hole so people know what I am talking about.  If I remember right, the carry over the bunker is probably 230 or so from the back and the hole is about 300.  But playing from the fairway on the left is blind over a relatively deep bunker and some dunes to a nasty green.


Of course, the satellite image is new and the bunker is much smaller today.  I tried to outline the original bunker size (which you can still see the outline of in the photo), which was at least 4 times bigger in my estimation.  I would be fascinated to hear how this came to be.  I assume the city of Lincoln did not provide you with a land mass ration for bunkering for Highlands or that it was agreed that it would play largely as more of a waste area.

Ben

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()