[Dan Kelly]

Looking at the aerial photo of Barona Creek, and seeing quite an array of enormous-looking, undoubtedly pleasing-to-the-eye bunkers, I was reminded of one of my pet peeves (which may or may not apply to Barona Creek; I have no way of knowing).

My gripe is this: bunkers that are WAY bigger than they need to be to serve their strategic purposes -- and that, because of their vastness, (1) may require the conscientious player to spend an inordinate time raking away his or her footprints; or (2) may tempt the unconscientious player to do a crappy raking job (or none at all). I don't care for either result.

Thoughts -- either your own, or ones you've read -- on the matter of appropriate bunker sizes?

Insights into why architects build bunkers of such Saharan dimensions?

To my eyes: Small Is Beautiful -- until proven otherwise.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

I like the contrast between big and small. Having played a good bit of golf at Bethpage Black (some of the bunkers are routinely raked by D-8's!) I think a big bunker is sort of like a big tandem truck on the open highway. Give them plenty of leeway and always your respect!

As far as the raking I just have to wonder how much longer it may be necessary that all bunkers be raked like some sort of hallowed shrine. I not in favor of the having furrows like Oakmont previously had but let's not forget a bunker is a hazard and therefore not always subject to a "perfect" lie.

Bunkers used to have real meaning and most of all engendered FEAR. In most cases the fear factor has been reduced, if not eliminated, on 80 precent of the courses in existence today in America.

I don't believe you need a massive number of bunkers but to me a variety of sizes, shapes and heights always keeps you on your toes. The last item. I also believe that in today's modern game where hitting it straight is not the high item of priority it previously was because of today's equipment -- bunkers need to be in the line of play to force you to either go over or around them. Therefore varying sizes add to the quality of the course in my opinion.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dan

I'm on your side.  To me the smaller and the fewer the better.

Hopefully my support will not be a kiss of death.  I did start a thread several months ago asking if over bunkering and overly-fancy bunkering was just "eye candy", and a cop out by architects who couldn't think of more creative and varied ways to present golfers with hazards, but not too many people agreed with me......

Rich

[Dan Kelly]

Matt --

Good points.

Just to answer one of them: I, for one, am not looking for "perfect lies" in bunkers. But hitting out of the heel-print of some guy who's even more overweight than I am is not my idea of fun.

[Peter Galea]

I like the old adage: "Just big enough for an angry man and his wedge."

[THuckaby2]

I'm with Matt Ward here - like most other things in golf, I dig variety.

And amazingly, though those bunkers look huge in the aerial, Todd accomplishes this at Barona!  There is more variety in bunker size than the aerial would suggest - but more importantly, many of the large bunkers have "pockets" such that if one gets in one, it resembles the evilest pot from the UK!  One in particular to note is the large right fairway bunker on #14 (top right of the photo on Scott's thread).  The farthest point from the tee in that bunker is a little "finger/pocket" extension of the large bunker and yep, I got in that and was basically DEAD!  Playable, but barely - which I thought was really cool....

On the other side, in fairness, my buddy playing with me at Barona spent more time in the sand than Lawrence of Arabia, so he was not as thrilled as I was with the bunkers... he did put in a LOT of rake time!  The cool thing is the course is so expansive, there's always a place to miss the bunkers, even if they are on the large side.  And they're so damn beautiful to look at with the fringes and odd shapes that what the hell, they're perfect!

Sorry to keep using Barona as the example, it just seems to be the topic of the day.

TH

[Patrick Hitt]

Dan,
I think Matt is right on with the idea of variety. I too spent alot of time on the old Black Course and I really loved the look and scale of the cross bunker on 4 as well as the waste bunker on 5.  The pit at Garden City GC also comes to mind. Both Garden City and Pine Valley have bunkers that range from tiny to expansive, so does Merion. Size and depth create much of the physical and psychological challenge. I know I've scratched my head in a few of Pete Dye's bunkers guarding the direct line of play like the 16th at the  Blackwolf River Course. Variety is the spice of life. Big or small - just make 'em HAZARDS.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

Have you ever seen the cross bunker on #4 at Bethpage Black raked?

[Tom Doak]

This is a great question -- precisely what I'm wrestling with in Lubbock this week.

Big sand is a stupid choice in this locale -- the only good bunker sand is several hundred miles away, and if you make a big bunker the wind will have its way with a lot of $ worth of sand.  But Texas Tech wants "the finest university golf course in America," and the public loves big flashy bunkers, regardless of whether they make any sense.

So, we're attempting to create a style of long, narrow, rugged bunkers that will minimize sand and wind exposure and still look cool.  We're off to a pretty good start.

A lot of times we want to build big bunkers because they're "in scale" with the big-scale sites that everyone loves nowadays.  [The only consistent result in the GOLF DIGEST Best New polls is that bigger is better, regardless of the architect.]  Funny, in Scotland they avoid this "scale" problem because a lot of the pot bunkers are semi-invisible, so they can't be "out of scale."

Bunkering is the one area that I've struggled with pandering to the public's preferences.  A shallow bunker next to the green, as George Thomas wrote, effectively punishes every shot that's wide of it by forcing the recovery shot to be lofted over it, without putting the average player in dire straits.  But those kind of bunkers don't win awards, and every architect in practice today knows it.

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

Yes, I have seen the 4th at Bethpage Black raked -- ditto the 7th which was Tillie's version of Hell's half acre (i.e. 7th at PV) and the large front bunker at #17. In the early years before NY State made a real commitment (I'm talking pre-1984) I can remember playing tournaments / events at the course and sometimes you would get in some "unusual" positions in the sand.

Keep in mind the previous sand was so soft it became a real adventure just getting to your ball. I can remember watching people hit into the top of the cross bunker at #4 and literally go up and back ... up and back, as they kept on sliding down before even getting to their ball. I believe all the "old" sand was replaced and what you have now is more compact and in keeping with today's style you find at most PGA tournaments. The same condition I mentioned at #4 used to always happen at #15 with the front bunker there.

The really imposing thing about the previous sand was it's density. If you as much as took an 1/2 inch too much you'd be lucky to advance the ball more than a few yards. Friends of mine used to call the sand at Bethpage "quick sand" because many times when you went in you'd be lucky to escape.  

Tom Doak:

Wish you well with your new site in Texas. I especially like small bunkers in the manner you described from George Thomas because they add so much variety without forcing average or below average golfers to deal with sand shots many of which they cannot really play in comparison with highly skilled players. Sometimes the smallest bunker can add a great deal to the mind game that is golf. Don't be so sure when you say that such a creation doesn't win awards -- I always try to keep my mind open.

You're absolutely right -- wind conditions will effect how much sand can be used and the shapes / configurations available. Any idea on how long the course will play from the tips? How many bunkers will you create?

[Brian Phillips]

Does the size of the bunker not have a lot to do with surrounding area.

I mean if the area is pretty much flat and you don't want to put in much false mounding then I would have thought that the bunkering would have to be pretty large so it is easier to see it.

If the area is bumpy and undulating it is much easier to just scrape out a small bunker with sand flashed up a bit into the mounding and it would be easy to see from any distance.

Not only does the terrain play a part but budget for construction and upkeep plays an important role.  Bunker sand is not cheap and neither is the drainage for bunkers especially if it is on a clay based area or there is a long distance to a pond or stream to lead the water away.

Jim Moore has written on the USGA website that bunkers take up more time of the greenkeeper than anything else on the course but greens.

Speaking to a load of greenkeepers last week at a conference many said that they don't really like flashed up big bunkers because it always seems to rain on a Friday before a big tournament!!!  Which meant a lot of raking of the faces late in the evening when they would rather have a beer in their hands and not a rake!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom's reply brings back many memories of designing west Texas golf courses.  I recall flying back to Dallas once with a 100 MPH tail wind!  The sand in the west Texas Bunkers was migrating to Dallas and points east as fast as the plane.  Of course, my newly installed bark chips in my planting beds now reside somewhere in Louisiana, or even farther east.

Flat bunkers are the rule there because of the wind.  And in Houston, flat bunkers are the rule because of the enormous rains (Turd Floaters, in local parlance)  If it ain't one thing, it's another!

Flat bunkers are usually the preference of better players.  They argue that the ball is more likely to bury on the slope facing the green, meaning that a golfer who has missed by 10 feet often has a worse situation than one who has missed by 20 and found the flat, non-burying portion of the bunker.  However, Thomas' comments are really ahead of his time, assuming the perfect conditions of bunkers today, the golfer who misses even further has, by far, the most delicate recovery.

However, count me as one who favors the dramatic Tillie/Thomas/Good Doctor flash bunkers unless absolutely necessary (Jim Moore be damned) just for the shear aesthetic value they provide.  Good, artistic bunkering does provide some of the satisfaction of being on a golf course, and strategically, really draws a golfers focus to it.  The hidden bunkers aren't really registering on the players mind.

I do agree that we tend to make bunkers larger on expansive sites, as small ones seem to disappear.  Variety, however, works everywhere.

[Ken_Cotner]

Tom D,

Just make sure they are big enough that the new basketball coach (who was also one of my professors in my college days) can't reach you with a thrown rake!

KC

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom D., Of the million courses that you've seen, would you say that the bunkering at Garden City GC is near the top in terms of its variety of placement, depths, and configurations?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Another factor not discussed yet is designing, on courses with budgets that require it, for the mechanical maintenance by a Sand Pro Rake, or equivalent machine.

On reasonalble slopes up to about 4:1, the riding rake needs a turning area diameter of 16-18 feet.  On steep slopes, 20 feet is preferred.  If you consider the mowability of the grass capes between the flashed sand bays, these also require similar turning radius' for machine mowing.  There are mowers out there that can mow a steep bank and tight turn common to cape and bay bunkers, but supers often don't like them because they could be beat by a good size turtle in a race around the bunker!

Also, keeping reasonable sand slopes (like below 4:1 at the top banks, and less (I find 6:1 slopes won't wash in all but the biggest "Turd Floaters" also makes bunkers bigger.  I have pictures of Winged Foot bunkers in my files, and they have slopes of near 1:1 from the looks of it.  I have seen Fazio bunkers (again, measured with a digital level) that exceed that, in trying to go for the traditional look .  For most bunkers on most courses, that is highly impractical.  If the bunker needs six foot of flash to be visible, that requires 6 feet at 1:1 slopes, but 36 feet at 6:1 slopes.

Just the perspective of an archie who tries to look out for the superintendent just a little bit, in hopes the super will be better able to look after my interests after opening!

[RJ_Daley]

This is an enjoyable discussion with insights from the archies on varying demands that environment and maintenance makes on bunker design and construction.  I particularly perked up with Doak's discussion of the demands of the Lubbock west Texas flat and windy site.  If I understand him correctly, his approach is to make more narrow bunkers in a sympathetic allignment with prevailing winds, recessed into the overall surrounding grounds profile with potlike or grass walls banking down into flat sand.  Is that right Tom?  The more I hear about the site there and the extraordinary demands that the Board of Regents are boasting that they want the best competition University course possible, the more I feel it is mission impossible.  If Doak pulls this off, he will really have to go up a few hat sizes!  I admire your guts Tom to accept the mission.  

Do you think that Raynor's style of what I call frog or aligator eye grass mounding backing flat sand bunkers is the way to go?  Is it even more desirable to place such wind guard mounds so that the sand is on the leeward side to be protected from blowing away.  Again, the fact that sand sources are quite a distance away sounds like a real devil to work around for economy of ongoing maintenance.

As for a very different bunker style, I think Ed Lawrence Packard was the best of the RB Harris proteges when it came to their bunker design style.  Most DGers don't like the gaping not too well defined bunkers from that school.  But, I have seen where Packard takes the style to a higher level.  His work at Medinah and several here in Wisconsin are good, and fit the character of the course presentations/designs quite well.  

But, "the boys" are my favorite bunkermeisters.  Whether they are Bunkerhill's or Bradleys and the varying styles they are capable of working with of crisp curled and sculpted lips to their trademark native blow outs. They do 'em right.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()