The case for topshot bunkers

[Patrick_Mucci]

When Donald Ross designed Mountain Ridge in 1929, he incorporated top shot bunkers on several holes.
# 5 and # 7 amongst them.

Over time all top shot bunkers were removed.

The 12th hole was altered many years ago by a misguided green chairman who planted pines in the right side of the fairway, moving the fairway well to the left, creating a dogleg hole.

Recently, the trees were removed, the fairway straightened out somewhat, two flanking stepped bunkers inserted in the left rough and the creek realigned down the right side rough.

AND, a large topshot bunker was inserted.

While the current DZ is substantially larger than the old DZ, it doesn't look that way from the tee.

The top shot bunker, in conjunction with the flanking bunkers makes the DZ look "small".

The illusion will surely intimidate the golfer, which is great, since this is a very short par 4.

Without the top shot bunker, the golfer would see the entirety of the DZ and feel far more comfortable on the tee.

At lunch today, an older golfer approached me and asked me what I thought about the hole and why the top shot bunker was reintroduced.

In addition to my "visual" answer, I stated that if one views the golf course as the architect's mission of preparing a thorough examination of the golfer's game, then surely, a single requirement of a demand drive over a short bunker is a legitimate part of that examination.  A test of the "driver" in the face of a visually intimidating feature, that in reality is not the physical impediment that it appears to be.

Hence, my view on top shot bunkers is more favorably inclined, having seen how they can alter one's perspective, without undue punishment to even the poorer golfer. 

Do you agree that at some point, there has to be a minimum performance standard built into architecture

I'm fairly sure that Mountain Ridge will reintroduce the other topshot bunkers in the future.

Will other clubs do the same /
I know that many, many topshot bunkers have been filled in.
Will they remain that way or regain popularity ?

[Mark Saltzman]

Patrick,

Very nice post.

I really don't see the top-shot bunker as some sort of "minimum performance standard."  To me, the top-shot bunker is all about the visual. 

Visual intimidation -- even a golfer that would never have trouble carrying the distance of the bunker, will be fearful of/embarrassed by the chance of finding this 'out-of-play' bunker.

Visual deception -- the short bunker makes it much more difficult to judge the distance of other hazards.. hazards that are actually in the DZ.

Visual confusion -- the top-shot bunker obscures features that otherwise would be seen.  At Plainfield's 7th, the dip in the fairway, the widening and then narrowing of the mowing lines, the first bunkers on the left... these features are all hidden by the two top-shot bunkers.  Some may say this kind of blindness is unfair, and maybe it is on the first play... but on future plays the knowledge that the features are there and the inability to see them makes the top-shot bunkers an excellent feature.

Returning to the 'minimum performance standard'.. I don't think there are hazards that should cause a golfer playing the correct tees a difficulty in reaching the fairway.  As such, as I've seen at several Ross courses that have top-shot bunkers in place, the ladies' and forward mens' tees are on the other side of the top-shot bunkers.  A good decision.

[Ronald Montesano]

Oh sagacious ones, define top-shot bunker for the less-sophisticated of us.

[Carl Johnson]

Oh sagacious ones, define top-shot bunker for the less-sophisticated of us.

I believe that it means a bunker 100 yds. or so in front of the tee that a normal drive would clear, but that a "topped shot" would find.  A very thinned shot might also find such a bunker.  Mr. Mucci, what say you?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,

In our era it seems more realistic to use them for their visual aspects rather than as a performance standard. I think they'd be more acceptable to everyone if used in that fashion, and more likely to be installed.

[Mark Saltzman]

Oh sagacious ones, define top-shot bunker for the less-sophisticated of us.

Ron, here is Plainfield's 7th, complete with top-shot bunkers.  Their purpose, as I see it, is to hide the width of the fairway and the fairway bunkers from view from the tee..








And for those that don't know what sagacious means (I didn't)...

sa·ga·cious/səˈgāSHəs/
Adjective:   Having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgment; shrewd.

[Ken Moum]

At my home course, one of only two Ross courses in Kansas, an aerial photo from 1948 shows a bunker midway between the tee and green on a 135-yard par three.

I've tried to imagine what effect it would have had without much success, and as a consequence would very much like to see it restored for the reasons you mention.

Our first hole has a rise in front of the first tee that sort of obscures the fairway, and there's a borrow pit on it.  I have long wondered if it also had a topshot bunker, which would have done precisely the work you describe.

K

[Mark Saltzman]

At my home course, one of only two Ross courses in Kansas, an aerial photo from 1948 shows a bunker midway between the tee and green on a 135-yard par three.

I've tried to imagine what effect it would have had without much success, and as a consequence would very much like to see it restored for the reasons you mention.

Our first hole has a rise in front of the first tee that sort of obscures the fairway, and there's a borrow pit on it.  I have long wondered if it also had a topshot bunker, which would have done precisely the work you describe.

K

Ken,

A topic I started on Ross par-3s with cross-bunkers...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50854.html


And Plainfield provides a very good example...


Hole 6 at Plainfield Country Club with commentary by restoring architect Gil Hanse:

As a shortish par 3, this is a neat hole and it was another litmus test for our renovation. There had been two little bunkers that weren't really in play and had been removed. But Ross had put them to serve as a visual trick to add a little doubt and confusion for the players. That the club let us restore them said a lot about their commitment to what we were trying to do, so they deserve a lot of credit.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat, yes, very fine post indeed. You make a good case, but Jim K raises I think a key issue (at least implicitly), i.e. if a modern-day top shot bunker is to be meaningful beyond simply the visual deception to creates, it would need to be exponentially further from the tee box than the ones DR designed back in the 20s and 30s (as exponential as the increased in driving distances since that time).  If that figure were to be, say, 150-180 yards out, would you still be promoting their use? And if you would, how much traction do you think such a bunker would have with the membership?

[Don_Mahaffey]

IMO, today a top shot should be closer and bigger then it might have been 50 years ago.

[Ronald Montesano]

ah-HAAA

I know these as "fore" bunkers. Not 'cause y'all yell 'fore,' but rather, 'cause they come afore the fairway.

[Jim Nugent]

In addition to my "visual" answer, I stated that if one views the golf course as the architect's mission of preparing a thorough examination of the golfer's game, then surely, a single requirement of a demand drive over a short bunker is a legitimate part of that examination.  A test of the "driver" in the face of a visually intimidating feature, that in reality is not the physical impediment that it appears to be.

You know the saying, "distance is its own reward."  The flip side of that might be, "a topped drive is its own punishment." 

If you top your drive, you have your work cut out for you.  On many holes you will have no chance of reaching the green.  On many others, you might have to hit 5 extra clubs (possibly more) to get home.  Is it really necessary to have to play that much longer shot out of sand as well? 

 

[Jason Topp]

An additional potential positive is that it is really fun to hit the ball over something.  A top shot bunker could give that thrill to more people. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

In addition to my "visual" answer, I stated that if one views the golf course as the architect's mission of preparing a thorough examination of the golfer's game, then surely, a single requirement of a demand drive over a short bunker is a legitimate part of that examination.  A test of the "driver" in the face of a visually intimidating feature, that in reality is not the physical impediment that it appears to be.

You know the saying, "distance is its own reward."  The flip side of that might be, "a topped drive is its own punishment." 

If you top your drive, you have your work cut out for you.  On many holes you will have no chance of reaching the green.  On many others, you might have to hit 5 extra clubs (possibly more) to get home.  Is it really necessary to have to play that much longer shot out of sand as well? 

Yes,

Especially since the feature is so rare.

It's a mental, visual and physical hazard

 

[Sean_A]

I tend not to be a huge fan of this sort of bunker because bunkers should be used sparingly and therefore there shouldn't be a lot of leeway for this luxury.  I would also add that for the visual and physical aspects of the bunker to have maximum impact than the grass should be short up to and around the bunkers - adding costs which may otherwise be avoided.  However, I am sure there are situations where top shot bunkers make sense, but I think it should be a rare occurrence. 

Ciao 

[Ronald Montesano]

Must top-shot bunkering extend the entire width of the playing corridor? Is there sense in coating the entire ingress with sand? Lacing the complete couloir with a penal beach? Even if beginners can't hit where they aim, at least a portion of the duct might be/have been left unsanded by a compassionate architect/builder.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Most, if not all top shot bunkers are in the rough in front of the fairway, so maintenance cost around the bunker is minimal.

Ron,

For someone who didn't know what a top shot bunker was, suddenly you want to redesign them to accommodate the beginner ?  ?  ?

Could you tell me which course was designed, primarily, for the beginner ?

I think Ross probably used them more than other Golden Age architects.
Belmont (MA) had/has a nice one.

I wonder if Ross more than others, used cross bunkers as well.
Plainfield has a nice assortment of cross bunkers.

The ability for the feature (topshot bunker) to visually shrink the DZ without affecting it physically is an enormous architectural benefit.
When Bill Brightly visits, he can take a photo of this feature.
I think he took pictures of the old 12th hole and can post them side by side for comparison.
The difference and improvement is dramatic.

What's interesting about the top shot bunkers at Mountain Ridge is how they're sited/built into a rise, one of which, on the 5th hole appears to have been formed by Ross.

In looking at old photos of Mountain Ridge, Hollywood and other early courses it appears that there are areas between the tee and fairway that were entirely sand.

One has to wonder, in New Jersey, NY and PA, in the early part of the 20th century,if this wasn't a direct influence from Pine Valley where many tee to fairway areas were all sand.

[Ken Moum]

A topic I started on Ross par-3s with cross-bunkers...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50854.html


And Plainfield provides a very good example...


Hole 6 at Plainfield Country Club with commentary by restoring architect Gil Hanse:

As a shortish par 3, this is a neat hole and it was another litmus test for our renovation. There had been two little bunkers that weren't really in play and had been removed. But Ross had put them to serve as a visual trick to add a little doubt and confusion for the players. That the club let us restore them said a lot about their commitment to what we were trying to do, so they deserve a lot of credit.

Oh my, does that make me wish we could restore the ones here.

I will see if I can get the old aerial posted to your old thread to bump it up for discussion.

Thanks,

Ken

[Steve_ Shaffer]

18 at LuLu(Ross) Par4, 406y

I often thought why but I've learned.

From the tee:



Close up view of bunker:



Photos courtesy of The Bausch Collection

[John Kirk]

Don't these bunkers also serve as a carry bunker for the weaker player?  Pasatiempo restored an 80-100 yard bunker on the long par-3 third hole, which adds an enjoyable challenge for the player who plays this hole as a par 4.  Maybe we all play that one as a par 4.

[Mike Hendren]

If visual obfuscation is the goal, why fill such bunkers with sand which:  a) increases maintenance costs; and b) doubly punishes the poor soul whose problems are already self-inflicted?

Is it possible that with smaller clubfaces and whippy shafts even the low handicappers of yesteryear periodically foozled from the tee and as a result the top-shot bunker insured that their penalty was a full stroke?

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

If visual obfuscation is the goal, why fill such bunkers with sand which:  a) increases maintenance costs; and b) doubly punishes the poor soul whose problems are already self-inflicted?

Because sand attracts the eye, it makes the feature stand out.
And, in conduction with the flanking bunkers, it presents a visual of a small, well protected DZ, when in fact the DZ is rather generous.
Grass doesn't present that intimidating visual that sand does.   

Is it possible that with smaller clubfaces and whippy shafts even the low handicappers of yesteryear periodically foozled from the tee and as a result the top-shot bunker insured that their penalty was a full stroke?

So you want today's golfer, with his modern equipment to face less of a challenge ?

Bogey

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, when did you last top a tee shot?

I haven't done so in 8 days!

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, when did you last top a tee shot?

I haven't done so in 8 days!

Mike,

Sadly, you're stuck in a one dimensional mind set..

The reintroduction of a topshot bunker has visually shrunk the DZ, and created doubt in the golfer's mind.
A seemingly generous DZ now appears to be much more confining without physically altering the DZ

That's tremendous "bang" for your architectural "buck"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I think top shot bunkers are most effective when they obscure portions of the fairway, even into the DZ, especially when used in conjunction with bunkers that flank the DZ