[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Provide a great test for the pro while remaining very playable for the average golfer?

I just saw the Tom Watson DVD commercial on Golf Channel and went to his website. A line in his tips for bunker play says that at times he'd rather be in the bunker than rough. That's not news, probably a majority of pro's think that. But would it be easier for golf courses to remain playable for average golfers while having the potential to challenge the top players?

After all, for pro's, bunkers are virtual relief options from being in ankle deep grass. So, what about places like Pinehurst #2 where balls can roll far off the greens and be in tight lies, but with very dense rough around the fairways? A course with no sand bunkers, just grass bunkers, would have much more ability to alter the set-up over time to be difficult for the best, while offering the membership wide playing corridors and interesting greens and so forth.

Is this type of course possible?

How would it be received?

Could it keep players interest over time?

[Scott Warren]

Jamie,

I agree that it is the way to achieve that.

A sand bunker penalises a poor golfer far more than a good one, whereas a grass bunker can exact a strong penalty from the better player while allowing a lesser player to advance his ball a considerable distance up the fairway, or get onto a green he has missed hitting in regulation.

The centreline fairway grunker on 16 at Huntercombe is a great example. A hazard like that in the driving zone stops a better player from going for the green, or at least for the pin, while the lesser golfer whose goal is to just hit the green somewhere, or even get near the green, is more able to do that than if he were in sand.

Furthermore, I think grass bunkers can be deeper and bolder than a sand bunker (especially as a driving hazard) as a result of that greater playability for the lesser player.

At the green, the better player who expects to turn a missed GIR into a par a good percentage of the time will have a harder time doing that from the rough of a grass bunker than from the sand, while a lesser player whose goal might be to just get it on the green and two putt most of the time will have an easier time doing so from grass than from sand.

[Ronald Montesano]

No, because the poor player will still struggle out of the rough that you need to challenge the better player. There is no way to do this.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

No, because the poor player will still struggle out of the rough that you need to challenge the better player. There is no way to do this.

You misunderstand. What I mean is for the rough areas to be kept mown at low height, 1 1/2 inch or even slightly less maybe. But to the point that if you are hosting a State Am you can grow it up a half inch or so, and if you have the desire to host a national event, grown it as high as possible. Then cut it down, slowly, back to normal height. It would not be the intention to keep the rough areas at tall heights all the time, the only areas maintained thick would be the areas designated as grass bunkers.

[Ryan Farrow]

You know, I was thinking about this the other day, but again, if you look at the top 100 or past US Open courses, there is a resounding theme, LOTS OF BUNKERS.

I would like to see the concept, I think its a good idea.

But there is a very simple answer, Pick your poison:







Its just a shame the USGA thinks the answer is to grow the rough 6-8 inches and leave the bunkers as polished works of art.



Wouldn't it be refreshing to see the US Open at Merion like this:

-2" Rough
-12 On The Stimp
-Furrowed Bunkers
-Oh yea, and a tournament ball

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Isn't the key for the Pro's really all about distance control?  Don't read lenght here.  Seems to me the quickest way to get into their head is to have the ball do stuff on the ground that is unpredictable.  As long as they can throw darts they don't have any problems.  If all you have is long rough then sure the bunker looks like a good alternative becasue once again they can control the ball out of a bunker much better.  If you have firm and fast then keep the rough moderate and let them advance it.  Now add some old school furrows in the bunkers so the ball settles in a bit and you have created some problems.

[Jay Flemma]

Jim Engh built a bunkerless course at Four Mile Ranch, just leaving native areas as the hazards.  Reports are it's well received.

http://www.fourmileranch.com/sites/courses/flyover.html

It may not be to everyone's taste, but it's a new and innovative idea - something fresh and different.

[Ian Andrew]

Yes, but people don't want it.

I recently put together a plan for a Toronto based course that involves reducing the bunker count from the high fifties and taking it down to just under thirty. The plan had nothing to do with money, but had everything to do with working with some really spectacular land. I also proposed widening out the fairways and cutting the surrounds short to really show of the contour of the land and make the undulations much more in play. I wanted the undulation to be the prime strategy.

While I spent lots of time explaining why in two meetings and helped them understand why short grass and fairway undulations were so impactful to strategy, I still had a segment of the membership that wanted bunkers (and trees to remain too). It wasn’t the strategic implications, because they actually got the concepts, but rather the visual aspect that they could not handle.

I used the analogy of a great room in a house. If the room was full of furniture and the walks were full of paintings the room would be cluttered. If the room had lots of furniture and each wall featured a painting or two it would feel nice, but the room would be lost to the furniture. If the room had a couple of specially selected pieces of furniture and one or two focal pieces on the wall it would be the most impressive, because the room and space would be an equal part of what we see.

I explained that while it’s hard to do less in our world of overstimulation, the best architecture is often the most understated approach. The analogy was well met, but they really would like more bunkers to look at. We live in an architectural period where the bunkers receive far too much attention.

[Rory Connaughton]

Much depends on topography of course.  If you have green sites that repel shots that do not carry the requisite distance or which allow the excessively hot approach to run through and away the absence of bunkers may make a hole more difficult.  I think this is especially true on a links. 

[Jay Flemma]

Yes, but people don't want it.

I recently put together a plan for a Toronto based course that involves reducing the bunker count from the high fifties and taking it down to just under thirty. The plan had nothing to do with money, but had everything to do with working with some really spectacular land. I also proposed widening out the fairways and cutting the surrounds short to really show of the contour of the land and make the undulations much more in play. I wanted the undulation to be the prime strategy.

While I spent lots of time explaining why in two meetings and helped them understand why short grass and fairway undulations were so impactful to strategy, I still had a segment of the membership that wanted bunkers (and trees to remain too). It wasn’t the strategic implications, because they actually got the concepts, but rather the visual aspect that they could not handle.

I used the analogy of a great room in a house. If the room was full of furniture and the walks were full of paintings the room would be cluttered. If the room had lots of furniture and each wall featured a painting or two it would feel nice, but the room would be lost to the furniture. If the room had a couple of specially selected pieces of furniture and one or two focal pieces on the wall it would be the most impressive, because the room and space would be an equal part of what we see.

I explained that while it’s hard to do less in our world of overstimulation, the best architecture is often the most understated approach. The analogy was well met, but they really would like more bunkers to look at. We live in an architectural period where the bunkers receive far too much attention.

Wouldn't fewer bunkers also promote the doctrine of deception in that fewer "aiming bunkers off the tee" makes the player pick his line more judiciously?  And wouldn't that be part of the real problem - which is that people still cling to the doctrine of framing.

Maybe that's where I disagree ideologically with some of the big name architects - the doctrine of framing limits the advantage of a smarter player by taking the thought process out of the equation for their opponent.  Couple the doctrine of framing with penal architecture and brains are taken out of the equation completely until you get greenside.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Ian the resistance you met is understandable as far as a renovation of a (likely) well off course. But if a course were to be built new and the owner wanted to be able to make a playable course for daily play, but also a course that could be made difficult if it were to be awarded an event, would a lack of bunkers be the way to go?

[Tom_Doak]

Ian the resistance you met is understandable as far as a renovation of a (likely) well off course. But if a course were to be built new and the owner wanted to be able to make a playable course for daily play, but also a course that could be made difficult if it were to be awarded an event, would a lack of bunkers be the way to go?

Jamie:

Theoretically, yes.  But as Ian points out, there is a very large segment of golfers who think bunkers are the coolest part of a golf course, and would never become a regular at a course with no [or few] bunkers.  And look at how bunkers are glorified ... for 50 years, in spite of its greens, Oakmont was more well known for having 300 bunkers.

There have been lots of discussions of this idea on GCA over the years -- perhaps you are stealthily trying to lure Tom Paul back to the site!  But, look around ... if this would be a popular move, why has nobody tried it and had any success?  There are a few courses in England on Royal grounds which have no bunkers and are reasonably well thought of, but nothing that has captured the public imagination.  And, as I recall, the Four Mile Ranch course mentioned above has no "bunkers" but has lots of "natural sandy wastes", so it fulfills the public's desire to see sand.

The real problem is for a golf course to be interesting without bunkers, it would have to play pretty firm and fast -- which usually means sandy soils -- which means it is inexpensive to dig bunkers.

[Sam Morrow]

Jim Engh built a bunkerless course at Four Mile Ranch, just leaving native areas as the hazards.  Reports are it's well received.

http://www.fourmileranch.com/sites/courses/flyover.html

It may not be to everyone's taste, but it's a new and innovative idea - something fresh and different.

Why are there bunkers on the flyover?

[Scott Warren]

[Mike_Clayton]

The one shot you can never play effectively with a bad grip is a bunker shot.
Almost all bad grips have the right hand under and that shuts the face as soon as the club moves back. There is no way to get it back open in order to get the correct impact.
Get rid of bunkers and you remove any incentive to learn a proper grip.

[Garland Bayley]

Ian the resistance you met is understandable as far as a renovation of a (likely) well off course. But if a course were to be built new and the owner wanted to be able to make a playable course for daily play, but also a course that could be made difficult if it were to be awarded an event, would a lack of bunkers be the way to go?

Jamie:

Theoretically, yes.  But as Ian points out, there is a very large segment of golfers who think bunkers are the coolest part of a golf course, and would never become a regular at a course with no [or few] bunkers.  And look at how bunkers are glorified ... for 50 years, in spite of its greens, Oakmont was more well known for having 300 bunkers.

If you don't understand golf courses very much, you ask for green, green, green; bunkers, bunkers, bunkers; and ponds, ponds, ponds. Why? Because they see it on TV. Because golf announcers glorify it. The announcers were going gaga over 10 and 18 last weekend.

There have been lots of discussions of this idea on GCA over the years -- perhaps you are stealthily trying to lure Tom Paul back to the site!  But, look around ... if this would be a popular move, why has nobody tried it and had any success? 

Bill Diddel tried it. What success would you say he had with it? Interestingly, there was an article last year about Pete Dye at Whistling Straits contemplating taking out bunkers, and replacing them with short grass as something just as if not more so confounding for the tour pro, but yet manageable by the average guy.

There are a few courses in England on Royal grounds which have no bunkers and are reasonably well thought of, but nothing that has captured the public imagination.  And, as I recall, the Four Mile Ranch course mentioned above has no "bunkers" but has lots of "natural sandy wastes", so it fulfills the public's desire to see sand.

The real problem is for a golf course to be interesting without bunkers, it would have to play pretty firm and fast -- which usually means sandy soils -- which means it is inexpensive to dig bunkers.

Here's an idea, take out the irrigation for firm and fast like old timers grew up with.

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

When I worked for Mr. Dye, he told me Mr. Diddel had been a mentor of his, and that Mr. Diddel refused to put in fairway irrigation on any of his courses.  Pete told him that he was thinking of taking the same stand, and that Diddel told Pete that would be a stupid thing to do; it was a stand only an old man could take.

[Jeff_Mingay]

It's completely bizarre that many golfers are suspect of courses without "enough" bunkers, yet the biggest complaint of as many - if not more - golfers these days is the condition of the bunkers.

I just submitted a related article to Golf Course Architecture magazine... maybe they'll publish it in a future issue

[Jay Flemma]

Jim Engh built a bunkerless course at Four Mile Ranch, just leaving native areas as the hazards.  Reports are it's well received.

http://www.fourmileranch.com/sites/courses/flyover.html

It may not be to everyone's taste, but it's a new and innovative idea - something fresh and different.

Why are there bunkers on the flyover?

There are a couple on a few holes,  but many holes are bunkerless.  I like those centerline ones.  But there are astonishingly few.

[Mike McGuire]

I've been trying to get our members to add bunkers. Its an old Langford course where a lot of sand that was designed never got put in.

We finally added green side sand next to our second green. Before that you had to go to the fifth green before you hit any sand.

Where the bunkers would be is bluegrass maintained at 2.5 inches. 

No sand makes it easy for high handicappers to get it airborne.

No sand makes it harder for most players as you have a chance with sand to get it close but in rough grass sometimes you have no shot or a shot only a word class player would attempt.

Mostly its resistance to change. If there was sand and we proposed to take it out they would not like it either.

For me sand is an integral part of the game  and the visual contrast appealing.

[Tim Gerrish]

Jay, I

'm not sure I like those very concentric fairway bunkers at four mile ranch.  I'm glad there are only a few, but then why have only a few?  What is the overall character of the course?  It would be like having one sod wall within a bunch of sand flashed bunkers??

I've tried several times to inspire a developer to build a "playing field".  Wall to wall fine cut turf with the only definition and/or hazards are slopes.  Not the most visual or aesthetically pleasing course and probably wouldn't make a magazine cover or some silly top course list.

[Bruce Katona]

Allowing the higher handicap players a large portion of the green to run an approach shot into on the ground and defending pin positions with internal green contours could minimize bunker construction.

Our typical customer wants nice tee grounds, wide enough fairways to capture their tee balls, reasonable approach shots into the green which allows them to wither fly the ball at the pin or run in onto the green (if out of position).  Most are not concerned with 3 putting several times. Nice teeing grounds, tee balls in the fairways and good greens hit in regulation will generate repeat business.

[David Harshbarger]

Allowing the higher handicap players a large portion of the green to run an approach shot into on the ground and defending pin positions with internal green contours could minimize bunker construction.

Our typical customer wants nice tee grounds, wide enough fairways to capture their tee balls, reasonable approach shots into the green which allows them to wither fly the ball at the pin or run in onto the green (if out of position).  Most are not concerned with 3 putting several times. Nice teeing grounds, tee balls in the fairways and good greens hit in regulation will generate repeat business.

Bruce, that makes a lot of sense.  Mid handicappers are plentiful and inconsistent. Their mishits are bad by any measure.  Their heads hang down after one.  They buck up on the way to the ball and appreciate a recovery opportunity.  What you describe caters to that. Sounds like a winning formula.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()