[Patrick_Mucci]

seems to have subsided.

At one time it seemed as if a great many new and old courses were introducing them.

Were they part of an expiring trend initially popularized by Pete Dye many years ago ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Pete had a lot to do with it, but I recall the first ASGCA trip to Scotland in 1980 having a lot to do with it as well.  Many on that trip started using their versions of pot bunkers after returning from what was, for many of us, our first trip to see those courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I'd agree, trips to Scotland are probably at the root of the trend.
But, it seems that Pete popularized the introduction in the 60's.

I remember Pete telling me about introducing pot bunkers, mounds and RR ties after his trip to he UK.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat, Jeff - if it is an expiring trend, that's too bad IMO.  As round sand-filled holes in the ground, pot bunkers do two very important things: 1) serve as simple, effective and no-nonsense hazards, and 2) curb architects' desire to be artistic and interesting and different when it comes to shaping what should be simple holes in the ground. (See point 1). Also, I think that pot punkers are most effective (both in terms of playability and aesthetics) when the rest of the course/design has the same kind of land-hugging and understated ethos/style - which style and ethos I like.

Peter

[Tim Gavrich]

The trend to introduce new golf courses, first and foremost, seems to have subsided too!

I love pot bunkers, but it's always been my impression that they're more of a pain to maintain and keep looking decent than their larger and less severe counterparts. Is there any truth to that notion? I say this because I know of a few middle-end public courses that have or have had pot bunkers and they look good at first, but they tend to start looking unkempt in a bad way before too long.

In America anyway, are pot bunkers a luxury many golf courses can ill afford? Back in Connecticut, there are a couple dozen fewer pot bunkers at Wintonbury Hills Golf Course than there were when it opened. Is this part of the reason why?

[David Bartman]

Tim,

I don't know about the cost to maintain the bunkers themselves ( small, everyone in the same spot so might use more sand, but sand is cheap ) but if you are referring to having the sod faces on the pot bunkers like we just saw in the British, those are expensive to maintain and Weiskopf stated on air that was the main reason that we don't see bunkers like that in the United States.   

[Josh Tarble]

Part of the reason could be conditioning of the course on the whole.  Without fairways running out the gathering effect of a pot bunker is greatly diminished.  Without balls bounding and rolling into the bunker the bunkers play much smaller.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Pat, aren't pot bunkers a function of course location and prevailing weather condition?

Sand has a far greater chance of NOT being moved around and blown out of pot type bunkers.

For me this is a case of function before form, and the attraction is in trying to capture the "Scottish Links" feel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, aren't pot bunkers a function of course location and prevailing weather condition?

Sand has a far greater chance of NOT being moved around and blown out of pot type bunkers.

For me this is a case of function before form, and the attraction is in trying to capture the "Scottish Links" feel.

Brett,

I think depth might be location driven, but, they seem to function extremely well even at shallow depths

The fear factor, created by even the smallest pot bunkers, seems to be significant, probably far more so than that generated by a typical bunker
I'd venture to say that the smaller the pot bunker the more feared it becomes due to swing restrictions.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, could you define your term "pot bunker" for us?  Do you view this as a function of merely circumference or diameter of the sand area?  Or, do you see this as also including the surrounds of a "pot" as being stacked sod wall, or just rough or FW cut sod slopes surrounding the pot of sand.  How big does the round bunker have to get before it is not a pot, IYO.  Of course the influence of the slope of turf around the pot is significant as to how it plays in the strategy and how deep it is to collect down into the smallish sand pot from a much greater surrounding depression of turf. 

I think my favorites are the smallish sand pots of about 4-6' diameter that have FW cut or rough or intermediate cut for a good number of feet surrounding them and the pot itself is only 12 inches to 18" deep.  12 at Rustic Canyon comes to mind, as does the greenside one at 18th Bayside in NE, or the smallish one at 17 BlackWolf Run.  But, there are so many.  I can't think off hand at a true smallish stacked sod pot I've played that I've been in, that fits my idea of a true pot bunker.  Maybe one at Arcadia Bluffs, but not specifically one I can think of. 

But, there isn't a better description than Darwin's of a pot bunker, "with just enough room for one angry man and his mashie". 

[Joel_Stewart]

I was thinking the same thing, to define the pot bunker?

After watching the Open this year at Lytham, I was very impressed.  These riveted bunkers are different than pot bunkers.  They have been tried in the US and Australia but the heat bakes them out and instead of rebuilding them every 5 years or so they need to be replaced every 2 years.  As an example, when Greg Norman originally built Medalist he had numerous pot bunkers but the heat in Florida took its toll. 

[RJ_Daley]

Yeah Joel, that one doesn't meet my personal definition of a pot bunker either.  Same with the most severe iteration of the Road Hole Bunker at its most severe, like when Duval had his encounter in 2000.  Those are sod wall bunkers, period, in my mind.  But, what if the bunker was only say 3 or 4 rows of stacked sod, and 6ft in diameter?  Then, one could maybe call it a pot bunker, no?  What do you think?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

The bunker you pictured is too large to qualify as the type of bunker I was referencing.

Your bunker is a big, expansive bunker.
I think most reveted , or sod stacked bunkers tend to be large.

I was thinking more along the lines of much smaller bunkers.

If one plays PV and looks off the fairway they'll see an inordinate number of them

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm not sure the true definition has a size, only the shape.

These are much smaller in both depth and size.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not sure the true definition has a size, only the shape.

These are much smaller in both depth and size.

Joel,

Those are larger than what I had in mind

[Matthew Sander]

Pat,

Are these closer to what you had in mind?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matthew,

Yes, but I'd prefer to see the buffer of rough removed.

I liked the description to the effect that there was just enough room for an irate golfer and his wedge.

I find Those small bunkers more threatening than large bunkers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()