'Floating' Back Bunkers ---- Why??

[Mark Saltzman]

Before I had any interest in GCA I always wondered why architects used 'floating' back bunkers.  Floating is a term I made up, but that is how they always appeared to me.  The bunkers I'm talking about are those that are 10+ yards over the green, often up a hill.  They are the type of bunkers that if you ask a member if he's ever seen anybody in the bunker, the answer would be "no".

Why are these bunkers used?  Are they just to frame the hole?  Is there any strategic merit in the placement of the bunkers?  Is it to make the approach appear more difficult?  But on subsequent plays, one would know the bunker is not in play.

Here are a couple of examples:

Huntsman Springs - The bunker way back right




Teton Reserve - The back bunker is about 10 yards over the green




Trump WPB - The back left bunker is about 10 yards over the green




Somebody please tell me why these are used!!!

[Kalen Braley]

Framing?

To instill "artificial" fear in the golfer with a bunker that doesn't come into play?

I suppose if they get no action, they are maintainence free...so I guess they aren't hurting much huh? 

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark,

Would you consider the back bunkers on #12 at Augusta "floating" bunkers?

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,

Would you consider the back bunkers on #12 at Augusta "floating" bunkers?

Tim,

No, not at all.  Those bunkers are just off the back of the green and certainly impact strategy on the hole. 

My definition of floating is less about the actual appearance and more about the impact on play (in that they do not impact play because are they never hit into).

[Ben Sims]

Sometimes it's about using bunkers to blend the line of distinction between grass and sky or grass and native.  

[Sean Leary]

I think bunkers long left come into play quite a bit because of a pull. Long right almost never is.

[JC Urbina]

Mark,

I find them very use full and I learned the craft from restoring  many of the Mackenzie courses in California.  The Valley Club has a few especially on the back nine.  Both Pasatiempo and Claremont have bunkers that "Float" on holes not even connected to the one your playing.

They serve a purpose and at Old Macdonald you can see one of the bunkers behind a green that was built several holes away.  They almost  took one out at The Rawls course at Texas Tech because they didn't understand the concept.  The one I added on the second hole behind the green at Sebonack really leads your eye away from the intended target.

I like to say they assist with the Depth of Field.

[Colin Macqueen]

Mark,
I rather like J C Urbina’s idea that they “assist with the depth of field”.  I suspect , as JCU alludes to, that they act as a distraction as much as anything else. They simply pull your attention ever so slightly away from the target that should be concentrated on.

In days of yore would not  a number of “bunkers” just have been where they were due to natural erosion and the green itself was placed without that particular hazard having a bearing on the green’s location?

Cheers Colin

[Tom Kelly]

Mark,

Would you consider the back bunkers on #12 at Augusta "floating" bunkers?

Do you mean the 13th at Augusta?



The 14th at Castle Stuart is also a great example which comes into play. If you hit it long from the right hand side of the fairway you can quite easily get a kick off the back edge of the narrow green into the bunkers and have a horrible recovery shot back over the 'valley'.

[Tony Ristola]

A few more reasons:

1) They assist with directing drainage away from the green. You could do it by shaping the slope behind, but sometimes bunkers disguise it better.

2) There can be a tee on the other side of the bunker, and the bunker acts as a buffer.

3) It defends hole locations towards the back of the green. Especially good in situations where the golfer is going in with a short iron. You could say it forces (better) golfers play a little more defensive, hitting it lower, skipping it to the hole.

I find holes where there is a round bunker is cut into the slope behind the green ugly. There may be exceptions to this, but I haven't seen it yet.

The following fits points 1 & 3.


 

[Sean_A]

If bunkers are used efficiently, there shouldn't be a lot available solely for visual gimmicktry.  While I like the idea of bunkers used for deception (and I have seen this done with rear bunkers - often big ones), I detest the idea of bunkers used for framing.  Lets be honest - most of these floating rear bunkers are there because the archie saw it before, probably on a Dr Mac course, and thinks it looks pretty.  Golfers are wowed by bunkers so archies have an easy way in to create a pretty scene. 

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

I know of one that protects the following tee from errant shots.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

Not a lot to add.  I would say most back bunkers are for visual framing, as statistically, they rarely come into play barring some unusual factors.  They are built above the green for visibility, but if their front lips aren't within a few feet of the green, they turn out to be mostly cosmetic.

One reason to build the up from the green, is that you can put a small bunker, grass bunker or swale right behind the green as hazards, but it will be blind, and then you build the bunker up higher to "mark" the hazard, even if you aren't seeing the one that really affects your shot.

The 4 bunkers behind ANGC were rebuilt years ago with a swale in front, because formerly, water came down the hill, was directed between the bunkers, and on to the putting surface. Someone posted a picture of the JN/Bob Cupp grading plan for that years ago.  I have it, but currently can't seem to post photos on gca.com.

[Michael Blake]

They certainly help me (a mid-handicapper) by providing depth perception on my approach.

[Mike Cirba]

Wow, is this an actual architecture thread?      

Great question and even better answers.

Thanks!!

[Sean_A]

A question concerning the drainage and safety reasons for the floaters - cannot just a barren hump do the job?  Do the humps have to house sand?

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

  Eye candy. And nothing wrong with it. The course should be a work of art.

  Anthony

[Greg Tallman]

  Eye candy. And nothing wrong with it. The course should be a work of art.

  Anthony

Can't afford to maintain eye candy these days. Get rid of them.

[Tony Ristola]

A question concerning the drainage and safety reasons for the floaters - cannot just a barren hump do the job?  Do the humps have to house sand?

Ciao

A bump, roll, swale, (subtle) grass bunker, cutting a ledge and camouflaging it in long grass so it's not obvious could all work, the question is what works best in the grand scheme.

For the record, I find the bunkers behind the 13th at Augusta awful.

The photo below, a bunker works better because there is a ground level tee right behind it, and this is a short par-5 of 450-meters. The green is fairly small, and surely some of the players would hit their approach onto the next tee if left in its natural state. The site is compact, so there was no room to move the tee, and I wanted to block out the players on the next tee as much as possible. A simple hill would have looked forced (to me), and a downhill shot from the hill, not especially interesting or good looking.

[Kalen Braley]

  Eye candy. And nothing wrong with it. The course should be a work of art.

  Anthony

Can't afford to maintain eye candy these days. Get rid of them.

Greg,

A case can be made though that bunkers which rarely, if ever come into play are actually less maintainence.  If no one goes in it, you never have to rake it.

As opposed to having rough which may need to be mowed once per week.

[Sean_A]

A question concerning the drainage and safety reasons for the floaters - cannot just a barren hump do the job?  Do the humps have to house sand?

Ciao

A bump, roll, swale, (subtle) grass bunker, cutting a ledge and camouflaging it in long grass so it's not obvious could all work, the question is what works best in the grand scheme.

For the record, I find the bunkers behind the 13th at Augusta awful.

The photo below, a bunker works better because there is a ground level tee right behind it, and this is a short par-5 of 450-meters. The green is fairly small, and surely some of the players would hit their approach onto the next tee if left in its natural state. The site is compact, so there was no room to move the tee, and I wanted to block out the players on the next tee as much as possible. A simple hill would have looked forced (to me), and a downhill shot from the hill, not especially interesting or good looking.

Tony

As I understand the term, your example is not one of floating bunkers.  Are they not more or less grade level?  To me a floating bunker is one well raised to the rear of the green.  The Augusta example is a good one.

Ciao

[Rory Connaughton]

There are a series of floaters behind and to the left of the green on 9 at Stonewall's Old Course.  The back right bunkers catch tee shots but the bunkers to the left make the hole, which plays across a pond, appear to be set at a much greater right to left angle than it actually is.  Although the green is not set square to the golfer it also does not run right to left nearly as much as one would think and that illusion frequently leaves golfers playing too far right both for safety and with the hope to catch a big slope. The slop is there and the ball will run left but not nearly as much as you would think from the tee.  It is very difficult to properly align on the tee shot.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony

As I understand the term, your example is not one of floating bunkers.  Are they not more or less grade level?  To me a floating bunker is one well raised to the rear of the green.  The Augusta example is a good one.

Ciao
[/quote]
A case of mental mission creep... Yes at grade.

I can say I'm not a huge fan of floating bunkers unless they look like some form of erosion, which may not fit with the scheme/style. I liked the look of the original scrapes behind the 13th at Augusta (Geoff's Golden Age of Golf Arch has photos I believe). They were believable, what exists today looks alien, forced... unnatural. I think making these bunkers work are some of the toughest challenges in the art of bunker creation.

[Greg Chambers]

  Eye candy. And nothing wrong with it. The course should be a work of art.

  Anthony

Can't afford to maintain eye candy these days. Get rid of them.

Greg,

A case can be made though that bunkers which rarely, if ever come into play are actually less maintainence.  If no one goes in it, you never have to rake it.

As opposed to having rough which may need to be mowed once per week.

A bunker still needs to be raked, to keep the weeds out.  Plus, you still need to mow the rough around the bunker, which is more time consuming considering the mower needs to be manuevered around the bunker.  The bunker edge needs to be trimmed on a regular basis.  And it needs to be edged from time to time.  So no, there is no case to be made that a back bunker is less maintenance than rough.

[Greg Tallman]

  Eye candy. And nothing wrong with it. The course should be a work of art.

  Anthony

Can't afford to maintain eye candy these days. Get rid of them.

Greg,

A case can be made though that bunkers which rarely, if ever come into play are actually less maintainence.  If no one goes in it, you never have to rake it.

As opposed to having rough which may need to be mowed once per week.

A bunker still needs to be raked, to keep the weeds out.  Plus, you still need to mow the rough around the bunker, which is more time consuming considering the mower needs to be manuevered around the bunker.  The bunker edge needs to be trimmed on a regular basis.  And it needs to be edged from time to time.  So no, there is no case to be made that a back bunker is less maintenance than rough.

Aye!