[Melvyn Morrow]

With the modern aerial game do we want to see Greens protected? I ask because many of the front Green defensives are now becoming redundant due to the ability to land on the Green, so should we not beef up the rear to accommodate an overshoot. Bunkers are useful catchment points for these wayward balls and if on the shallow side tend to be more of a benefit to the player than the penalty they should be for his/her error.

Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot. 

Of course the argument against that is usage of more land, but if we are increasing the courses due to the new distance the ball travels, surely that can be accommodated with minimal cost and planning of the overall project.

OR is the current position of protecting Greens with rear bunkers still the preferred method as it may assist the average golfer and is by definition very old fashion and somewhat dated.

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

MHM,

I'm a big fan of greens that slope back to front with bunkers behind them, especially where the rear of the green has an elevated plateau or tier.


I believe that that configuration is one of the most challenging in golf, physically and mentally.

The fear and consequences of going long are enormous.
Recovery is very, very difficult.

Playing short leaves the golfer with a very difficult putt, uphill, up to an elevated tier, bringing far more 3 putts into play.

One of my favorite holes is # 16 at The Creek, where going long will almost guarantee a bogey or worse.

It's a great feature when combined with others.

[Ben Sims]

I remember specifically the 15th at Pine Valley, where after a poor shot followed a marginal drive, my third shot from under a tree required to be a punch cut 3-wood running to the green.  I'm a viking with that recovery shot. 

With that club, I was already concerned about hitting it too hard and running it through the green, with the green so visibly sloped back to front.  It wasn't until our caddy Leo told me there was a bunker back there that I really started wondering if there was another option to get on in regulation.

So I don't think it's exact yardages and fronting hazards that make this idea viable.  Rather, I think it's the recovery shot's difficulty that makes it more worrisome.  As eluded to by Mr. Mucci. 

[Mark Johnson]

Id prefer seeing an increased use of false backs,  think this punishes poor hits shots much much than a bunker which will ultimately stop a ball.  With a back pin, it makes missing ling a much greater penalty.  

Unless it is a very steep bunker, for better golfer, being in a bunker is much better than being in deep rough or hardpan.   False fronts create more of a penalty and can be easier to maintain

[Bobby Jones]

I think a good example of this is #16 at Riviera.  Relatively short hole, about 150 downhill usually into the breeze.  Whatever you do, don't go long...very narrow bunker behind the green and you're probably gonna have to hit sideways or backwards to get out of it (since the ball will roll towards the back lip of the bunker.)  Glad i've never had to play out of it.

Bobby

[Alex Miller]

I think this is a great question.

I think the argument for rear bunkers makes sense given a players increased ability to stop the ball on command. I'm sure fewer golfers today go long on their approaches because they can't hold the green than before. This makes the bunker a better hazard for those players who "airmail" the green because it provides a more just punishment than a runoff, which would be less effective because the ball doesn't release as much now.

But like others I agree that rear bunkers are best used on back to front sloping greens, otherwise they get in the way and stop wayward balls which might end up in worse positions.

[Adam Clayman]

Melvyn, Hard to tell which side of the argument are on. You use "still in the title and then ask if rear bunkers should be used more.

As for their need, I'm fully a fan of their use, in moderation, when appropriate. Especially when tied in with visuals on a long range scales. I think  of Mackenzie, Stanley Thompson, Proctor and Axland, whose work is replete with examples of well done examples.  Even, the Jones family and Pete Dye have used these features to great affect.

My favorites of Dye's, Proctor & Axland's tend to be small and hidden behind the green, benched in the fall off, as sort of a "Gottcha" reminder, that you have made a serious miscalculation, not only in execution but also strategically. If they are small enough, they can even elicit an audible chuckle. I think they are the cutest thing in golf course architecture.

[Bradley Anderson]

I love rear bunkers. They were much more prevalent in the past.

[Andy Stamm]

I think making long a 'penalty' can have be a real positive. More than other trouble spots, this will likely effect/influence the good player over the poorer one. As Patrick mentions a stiff penalty for missing long can make a back tier pin placement truly fearsome, not just in execution by also on the player's mind.

However, back bunkers typically see very little action, so they can add to the construction/maintenance costs without providing that much benefit.

As Marks states, if there's enough room, I think having nothing behind the green is better because it can be harder (especially on a push up green), and it's cheaper/easier. Plus, I'm more scared by seeing nothing (e.g. a fall-away) behind a green than seeing a bunker that I know will stop the ball.

I do generally like the idea of a bunker to stop a ball (preferably leaving a difficult shot) that otherwise is going to finish really, really badly, for instance lost. My home course has a lot holes were carrying a shot (even wedge) to the back fringe means the ball will finish probably 40 yards long, down hill into thick woods, meaning you probably won't find it. A bunker down the hill before the woods would leave a very tough shot, but would, to me, be preferable to the alternative.

[Bill_McBride]

I say mix it up.  Some greens with rear bunkers, some without.  Most greens with open fronts.  Just be sure there's variety, that's the spice of good golf design.

[Sean_A]

Its not often seen, but a front to back green with a blind long bunker always appealed to me - especially if the green is fairly long.  

I am not too worried about bunkers behind back to front greens - that recovery if done properly is already a tough shot.  

Generally speaking, I wouldn't be wasting too much of my bunker budget in areas behind the green except on the odd hole or two.  This is the reason courses have so many bunkers - people just keep slapping them in rather than really giving it good thought about their purpose in context with the design.

Ciao  

[jim_lewis]

I can't be sure, but I think I read somewhere a few years ago that Donald Ross did not like bunkers immediately behind greens. His logic was that most players underclub on their approach shots, and he did not want to discourage them from hitting enough club by putting bunkers behind greens. The most common exception was for safety reasons. In those days, the next tee was often located just behind the previous green and bunkers served to keep players from flying the green onto the tee of the next hole. I can not confirm that Ross ever expressed this opinion, but I have no argument with it.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Mel,

I'm sorry but I find your post difficult to parse.

Front bunkers are now rendered obsolete by modern golf??  Green defenses are "redundant".  If the modern "aerial" game is so accurate and now front bunkers are obsolete how do dorsal bunkers come into play or any bunkers ever for that matter?

I'm with Pat Mucci where I do appreciate the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks holes that punish the overshooters with bunkers that lurk behind the green yet I have read your original post four times and I confess that I do not understand your point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

That's the configuration of the 10th green at GCGC.

The 13th is similar, but the bunker is offset.

[Tony Ristola]

With the modern aerial game do we want to see Greens protected? I ask because many of the front Green defensives are now becoming redundant due to the ability to land on the Green, so should we not beef up the rear to accommodate an overshoot. Bunkers are useful catchment points for these wayward balls and if on the shallow side tend to be more of a benefit to the player than the penalty they should be for his/her error.

Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot.  

Of course the argument against that is usage of more land, but if we are increasing the courses due to the new distance the ball travels, surely that can be accommodated with minimal cost and planning of the overall project.

OR is the current position of protecting Greens with rear bunkers still the preferred method as it may assist the average golfer and is by definition very old fashion and somewhat dated.

Melvyn

Everything has it place. I think too many options have been taken off the table, so by all means add rear bunkers if necessary. Just did this on an opening hole, and created a slightly diagonal tier that fell away from the golfer midway through the green on a 340-meter, downhill hole. The hole locations around the tier are the most difficult as it usually requires precision to get the ball close, and the rear placement requires hitting a shot to release over the tier or having faith in distance control and flying it over the tier.

What I'm not particularly fond of is rear bunkers flashed into artificial mounds (though there are some that are tastefully camouflaged)... especially round bunkers. A subtle apex in the green is enough to give the position away to the observant golfer, no need for overkill, or perhaps a new term... "overfill".

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am sorry some are having some difficulty regards my question on Greens and Bunkers.

I feel the modern ideas of hazards are defined as the good old sand trap alias the Bunker or some sort of water feature. However, we all know that the designer’s arsenal has a great deal hidden just waiting to surprise and test our own resolve. It’s a pity they seem reluctant to delve deep into the cobweb corners of their storage area to occasionally surprise us.

The tactical or strategic part of today’s game has now centred on the Green leaving the Fairway game devoid of any real test or for that matter substance. One’s mind is not focused these days until the Range Finder is required in earnest which on average is 190yards from the Flag. Now the game is coming to life, friendly banter reduced in favour of concentrating upon the job in hand.

(Pity that we seem no longer to have that same feeling on the Tee as they have just become a means to an end, generating  very little interest and minimal challenge. I for one miss the sighting of cross bunkers on various LZ dotted over the fairway. Requiring the golfer to show as much skill with his Driver as he does with his 9 Iron or putter, but alas those where the good old days when equipment still rules but not to the extent they do today . Sorry I digress, back to the topic in hand

Greens are more than just an Oasis of Green in the centre of a horseshoe shape bunker (or for that matter is an Island Green). They are the modern Coliseums where the real cut and thrust of golf takes place (as the fairways have been made more or less pointless) , they are the epicentre  of the game, where we take no prisoners, the result makes our day and enhances our record (handicap).

So choice of hazard is important, we keep falling back upon sand and water yet  grass and contours are still fairly productive in determining direction of the ball and of course we have the beast of all, the stone wall as the final deterrent  for the wayward ball.

Have we focused upon using the land past the Green, I fear not, we use it as a way to stop the ball travelling – an aid to the over generous shot, but should we be assisting the golfer at the Green, making his life easy when we have already minimised the hazards on the fairway. Also why should the course stop at the other edge of the Green/rough/rear Green bunker, why should we not test the golfer due to the error of his shot, why make it easy and trap it by use of a bunker. Perhaps deep Pot Hole Bunkers may suffice when land is in short supply, remember the game is not over until you hear the ball in the tin cup. As for water, I fear you kill the game by using water at the Greens.

I love bunkers, but we should use them wisely and surrounding them around a Green is not my idea of wise. I suppose I just wish the modern game would embrace more various hazards from Tee to past the Green, not forgetting that hazards while they may not outwardly affect the good golfer may disturb the concentration, just knowing they are there thus turning into a mental hazard which can be the worst kind.

MY preference being bunkers are preferable to water near a Green but there are more traps just waiting to be selected and the secret is variation, run very closely after location, location, Location.

Melvyn

[Rory Connaughton]

Isn't it all dependent on the topography behind the green?  For example if the green is set into a hill with a steep slope behind, a little chip or shot where the blade is opened almost flat may be more difficult from turf than would a shot from a bunker vs. a green site where the topography beyond the green is relatively flat.

[Tim Liddy]

A good player will typically miss an approach shot long and left while the average golfer misses short and right. In support of playability a deep back- left bunker with no bunker on the front right of a green adds greatly to playability and enjoyment for both golfers.

[Anthony Butler]

Anyone who questions the appropriateness and/or difficultly of rear bunkers has never been to the Valley Club

Some of the biggest back to front sloping greens you'll find are back-stopped by bunkers. From the two rounds I've played there with variety of members between 5 and 14 h'cap, they seemed to struggle a lot more getting up and down from these bunkers than anywhere else around the green. Granted,  VC doesn't have many (or any) false backs. so it's hard to do a comparison. But apart from the visual presentation which people seem to like. It's hard to get enough height or spin on a shot from a back bunker at VC to stop it anywhere near the pin, let alone on the green.



Given the Valley Club is basically routed into the San Ysidro mountain range, it's another way Mackenzie creates hazards that work with the available land. Another course he designed I am familiar with uses many false backs because it's more appropriate to the land and makes maximum advantage of the views. NSW #3, 5, 13 (pictured) 14, 16 all feature false backs.



I would argue that it's not so much mix and match on one golf course as choose what's better for the locale. You can be successful with either approach.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

The point I am trying to make is that should we have bunkers in that location. I fear the answer is no perhaps a further 20 M back, but of course we have to consider the terrain. But rear bunkers generally are an aid to the wayward shot by not being deep yet will stop the ball. I am saying should we not at times let the ball go – a free markets, if you will and see where it stops rather than control it via a bunker.

Melvyn

[Rory Connaughton]

MHM

  I agree that there are times when it is very good to just let the ball go where it will beyond a green.

[Phil_the_Author]

"Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot."

Melvyn, placing "stone walls" 20m in front of greens to "stop balls and test the resolve of the golfer? Isn't your premise based upon fronting bunkers becoming irrelevant because of the "modern aerial game?"

   

[Mark Pearce]

Philip,

Melvyn is talking about hazards behind, not in front of, the green.

[Evan Fleisher]

Isn't it all dependent on the topography behind the green?  For example if the green is set into a hill with a steep slope behind, a little chip or shot where the blade is opened almost flat may be more difficult from turf than would a shot from a bunker vs. a green site where the topography beyond the green is relatively flat.

These are pretty well my thoughts exactly.  I think a good example of this (here in Cleveland) might be Canterbury and another I can think of might be Lawsonia Links..  There are some great back bunker schemes on the Canterbury course and with conditions playing firm and fast become an "obstacle" to be thought about on many green approaches when the ground game option is in full effect.

I also agree that swales and/or grass type bunkers and collection areas are other options, but a back bunker can be a nice "surprise" and a fun challenge when on those few occasions we do stray "long".

[Melvyn Morrow]

Philip

It is so easy to misunderstand fellow members on this site. You my friend have done just that.

Your post #   reads as follows
"Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot."

Melvyn, placing "stone walls" 20m in front of greens to "stop balls and test the resolve of the golfer? Isn't your premise based upon fronting bunkers becoming irrelevant because of the "modern aerial game?"

I never mention in front of the Green my words being
“continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball”. I take that to mean the course continues out the other side and I did go on to say “Of course the argument against that is usage of more land, but if we are increasing the courses due to the new distance the ball travels, surely that can be accommodated with minimal cost and planning of the overall project”.

NO not in front of the Green, but behind the Green –  thus allowing the over compensated aerial shot at the Green to freely travel the distance it was hit and not being artificially stopped by generally generous bunkers (which favour the golfer).

Hope that explains my comment and topic.

Melvyn

PS Your idea even for me may be just too penal in that you think I may be seeking a ditch with sand base directly in front of bank having a stone wall  see attached photo. To even think of placing something like this about 20 yards in front of the Green. No you cannot be serious.
.      

I like your sense of humour perhaps question your design intent a little - you wicked boy, that's more than the average Redan.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()