Cutting Bunkers into Natural Land Features: Is It Ever Bad?

[JNC Lyon]

Max Behr wrote in "Art and Golf Architecture" that "the revelation that lies in the mists ahead is form that reveals true beauty.  This we will achieve only when the features we must create are considered, not solely as ends in themselves, but as means of expressing authentic landscape form."

Golden Age architects often cut bunkers into natural land forms, regardless of their strategic importance to the hole.  Donald Ross, in particular, liked to do this.  At courses like Teugega and Oak Hill, Ross cut bunkers into hillsides at seemingly unimportant distances off the tee.  Yet these bunkers always served to accentuate the natural features of the property and fit in well with the terrain.  These bunkers were not just "ends in themselves," but they were meant to reflect and highlight the natural features of the golf course.

When bunkering a golf course, should architects place hazards in natural locations instead of merely "strategic" locations?  Can a golf architect ever go wrong by bunkering into pre-existing land features?

[Sean_A]

JNC

Yes, I think archies can wrong slapping in bunkers because they fit into the landscape (or not).  If the site is that lovely with a natural sandy base the grasses which grow are a lovely contrast to the more tended areas of the course.  That said, I don't see anything wrong with trying to create a magic/memorable moment or two if the sutuation presents itself.  St Enodoc's 6th and Sandwich's 4th are examples of this.  Totally unnecessary hazards given what would already have been there, but sometimes these sorts of areas need to be "formalized" to keep sand contained. 

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

White Bear Yacht Club has recently removed some key bunkers cut into hillsides. The affect allows balls to run and release to their natural more unpredictable conclusion farther away from their intended target. I interpret this to be an example of what you are looking for.  But I could be wrong.

They have also taken down specific trees that were placed there because so and so used to be able to drive it there.

Two fine examples where thoughtfulness has returned to the sport on a great quirky course.

[James Boon]

When bunkering a golf course, should architects place hazards in natural locations instead of merely "strategic" locations?  Can a golf architect ever go wrong by bunkering into pre-existing land features?

JNC,

I agree with Sean that they can go wrong doing it but at times it works perfectly, such as the 6th at St Enodoc that he mentions.

However, I would have said that the real trick, is for the architect to find a routing or layout of a hole that would put that natural feature into a strategic location on the hole?

Cheers,

James

[Ally Mcintosh]

Absolutely placing bunkers in to natural landforms, regardless of distance off the tee (or from the green). It makes a big difference aesthetically... Unless you are in sand with a low water table enabling you to dig and tie in rather than mound and tie-in... Even then nothing looks better than a bunker placed in to an existing ridge etc...

That said, it should by no means be an automatic choice because natural features also create the best run-offs, green and fairway challenges if left as short grass...

So bunkers look best in natural landforms... But that doesn't mean natural landforms should always (or even usually) house bunkers...

[BCrosby]

As Mike Young will remind you, there are any number of Ross bunkers whose only real purpose was to assist with drainage or provide fill dirt for a green or some other feature. I tend to be skeptical about Ross having higher aesthetic or strategic goals for a lot his seemingly extraneous bunkers. That Ross located such bunkers in natural swales was about making a virtue of a necessity. 

I don't mean to suggest that his superfluous bunkering was always done for such purposes. But there is often a temptation to read too much into them.

Bob

 

[michael damico]

However, I would have said that the real trick, is for the architect to find a routing or layout of a hole that would put that natural feature into a strategic location on the hole?

I have to agree James, it's finding several natural features that individual holes can utilize and yet still fit within a routing. Growing up playing alot of Ross courses, I always took note of how he may have utilized 3 or 4 major features for 6-12 holes, almost all in different manners.

[Joel_Stewart]

At the Olympic Club, Ocean course, Bill Love (I shutter to call him an architect) did one stupid thing after another on the 15th hole.

The club wanted him to shorten the 15th hole so they could extend the driving range.  So he moved the green forward about 20 yards.  The hole has these 2 Mae West type natural sand dune mounds about 100 yards from the green.  On the left mound, he sodded it over, completely.

Next he then placed 2 bunkers into the face of the mound at such an angle its almost impossible to reach the green if you are in them.  Trouble is these bunkers don't effect good golfers, only bad.

Third, he ran a cart path over it on the far left side.

It was architecture at it's worst.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, if you go by the dictum that "no hazard is unfair wherever it is placed," then I guess it can never be bad to build bunkers into the existing landforms -- or anywhere else!

But there is also a meaning to the old expression "too much of a good thing."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally has it right.  While its always good to put bunkers in natural up slopes, its not good to always put bunkers in natural upslopes.  No doubt its a case by case basis.

Some reasons I could think of to NOT put them in any given natural location:

Variety - Doing it everywhere might be repetitive

Visuals - As per the visual overkill thread, while I love the look of scattered bunkers, I think if I saw it every hole it would lose some effect

Difficulty - In general, leaving them off the hacks landing zones may help speed play and enjoyment for those players.

Cost - Given the cost of building bunkers (esp. if liners are involved) and ongoing maintenance, for most courses, adding them willy nilly and randomly is not the right solution.

I actually had this situation earlier this week on a remodel we are doing.  There is a hole that had a scattering of bunkers in some built and natural hillsides (given the mature tree cover, they all look natural) but so many holes had a similar pattern.  We stacked the other side with bunkers, and converted this particular natural upslope into a kick in bank with no bunkers, pinching the fw to create some driver vs non driver strategy that wasn't there - or anywhere else on the course - previously.

[Adam Clayman]

There's bunkers cut into mounds that are hideous. Shouldn't the majority of the bunker be cut closer to the base than the apex or top of the land feature?   I assume this is true from a comment Dan Proctor once made about a mogul (constructed) filled canvas he was contemplating improving. The line was "Sure was nice of Marty to build all these mounds, so we could put bunkers in the bottom of them". 

[JNC Lyon]

At the Olympic Club, Ocean course, Bill Love (I shutter to call him an architect) did one stupid thing after another on the 15th hole.

The club wanted him to shorten the 15th hole so they could extend the driving range.  So he moved the green forward about 20 yards.  The hole has these 2 Mae West type natural sand dune mounds about 100 yards from the green.  On the left mound, he sodded it over, completely.

Next he then placed 2 bunkers into the face of the mound at such an angle its almost impossible to reach the green if you are in them.  Trouble is these bunkers don't effect good golfers, only bad.

Third, he ran a cart path over it on the far left side.

It was architecture at it's worst.

Joel,

This seems like a case of an architect completely altering the natural features of the land rather than accentuating or highlighting them.  Although the bunkers may be bad now, were they any less penal than the sand dunes that they replaced?  Part of my point was that bunkers cut into natural features are good regardless of their strategic importance.

[JNC Lyon]

Ally, Jeff, et al:

I agree that these types of bunkers can be overdone, just like any type of hazard in any placement.  My concern is these types of bunkers as a one-shot deal: can an architect ruin an existing contour with a bunker?  Or is this usually the best place for a bunker?

Would architects be better off trying to cut bunkers into existing landforms rather than trying to place bunkers in strategic locations that may also appear unnatural?

As for the idea of Ross as "accidental genius," I am not sure if I buy that argument.  Ross clearly had an intimate knowledge of the land to route golf courses the way he did.  Holes flow beautifully over natural terrain, and tees and greens tend to find high points very well.  With this characteristic knowledge of the land, I find it difficult to believe that his bunkers were cut into hillsides merely to create fill for other features.  At Oak Hill's West Course, it seems like Ross built bunkers into pre-existing slopes and used mounding to break up the flatter parts of the property.  This strategy is revealed in a 1930 aerial of the course.  While many folks thought he built bunkers where mounds exist today in flat areas, the old photo reveals that these mounds were never bunkers, and that nearly all of his original bunkering was cut into natural slopes.  Some of this bunkering is strategic, but some simply accentuates the land features.

[Jeff_Brauer]

That is, of course, the 64K question of bunkering, is it not?

For the most part, I NEVER build a bunker on a downslope. I have seen it done, but by the time I build the 4-5 foot of support fill from the front, then it may be a 15-20 foot fill on the back, if the downslope is steep enough.  It always looks fake.

However, on basically level ground, I have no real problem adding fill to build a bunker, if really necessary.  After all, we are trying to use the natural features where we can, and artificial bunkers are usually added where there ARE NO NATURAL FEATURES to be had.  So, I expect that I will have to build some on flat land.

I am not even sure I care if the fill is obviously constructed, although I don't like it to be so obvioulsy artificial as to jar the eyeballs.  In one way, just accepting that you have decided to build a bunker for hazard is just as "sincere" and "minimalist" as deciding you have to keep adding fill all the way down the fw (or substantially so) just to try to tie it in and make it "more" natural.

Thus, that leaves the question of just how often do you use the natural up slopes (perfect for making bunkers visible) for bunkers, vs no hazard, accentuating the landform into mounds, or some other thing.  I tend to look at every up slope as a great sand bunker location, and start the process of talking myself in or out of it.

I do look at how close it is to a real landing zone so as to affect play.  That said, if the DL is 300 from the tips, and I expect the tee shot to land about there for the "average" back tee player (not affected by wind, slope, etc) but the knob is anywhere from maybe 270-320, I would probably put a flanking bunker in the most natural location, if I decided to put one in.  There is no one who hits it exactly 300 yards, and even a single player whose average tee shot might be 300 yards would probably hit a range of tee shots from 280-320.  So, no sense obsessing over a bunker at any particular yardage.

On the other hand, if the slope is under about 270 from the tips, I look to see if it can function as a carry slope (unaided) or carry bunker, if the visuals are right.  Again, if its shorter, I don't care - I just open up the potential carry to more players on a daily basis, even if the margin for error for some gets a bit bigger than might be ideal.  Of course, we can play with tee locations, too.

Its a circular process and the decision probably can't be as clearly right or wrong as anyone might type out here.

[Kyle Harris]

For the most part, I NEVER build a bunker on a downslope. I have seen it done, but by the time I build the 4-5 foot of support fill from the front, then it may be a 15-20 foot fill on the back, if the downslope is steep enough.  It always looks fake.

You're implying necessity here. It's really an artistic decision on your part to make the bunker visible.

Most bunkers look fake. Random sand pockets don't exist in most American terrain.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Would architects be better off trying to cut bunkers into existing landforms rather than trying to place bunkers in strategic locations that may also appear unnatural?

I think it's a mixture of both...

I hate courses with all hazards built at the supposed landing zone of 270- 300 yards off the back tee. At the same time, I still see the need of having a slightly higher average number of hazards in that area. For instance a course with a higher number at 150 yards or at 380 yards is generally penalising the wrong kind of player and looks unbalanced aesthetically....

So artificially build some for strategic merit and build some as they come for aesthetic merit (these will always be strategic for certain players).

Of course the really clever routings use some natural features around the 270 - 300 yard mark. Many holes are made because of this... Think of the diagonal ridge on the 9th at Lahinch. There's a hole where a bunker built in to that ridge would take away from the hole rather than enhance it....

[JNC Lyon]

Bunkers exclusively at the 270-300 mark never made any sense to me.  I was very short hitter until I was about 17 years old, meaning that I never had any hazards come into play for me off the tee.  This was obviously good in some respects, but it also made courses that were interesting for longer hitters very boring for me.  I think many of these courses would be more interesting if bunkers were determined by the natural features to vary distances from the tee.

Do bunkers at 380 yards only penalize weaker players?  Or do they also penalize good players who hit poor shots?  I think a problem occurs when bunkers are considered penalties instead of challenges or chances for success.  Any player gets a thrill from carrying a shot over a hazard, regardless of how far he or she hits it.