[Grant Saunders]

Firstly, I am making a fairly general statement here and I understand that there are exceptions to the somewhat simplified assessment I have applied.

 I am a fan of greenside bunkers that sit in a raised manner in relation to their surrounds. Mostly, this is achieved through cutting the bunker into a  mound or form that already exists.

My preference is based on a visual and playability aspect which stems from the fact that the form also has the added effect of hiding the putting surface dependent on the angle of approach. Factor into the equation the further challenge created by a downslope running towards the green and the possibility of a ball being propelled across the green. The downside is the limited opportunity to apply this style in a natural way.

In comparison, a bunker below the surface, is usually deeper but offers limited or no material to hide the putting surface.

As a reasonable player, I personally find it far more unsettling hitting a shot where I cant see the whole flagstick or the spot where I'm trying to land the ball. This is magnified when having to also carry a bunker. Hitting over a bunker but being able to see clearly all the terrain to traverse just seems easier to me.

A question for the architects: Is the goal for natural feeling/looking bunkers ever restrictive when designing a hole? Are there times when a clearly manufactured hazard offers greater scope for creating strategy and is worth the loss in continuity?

[Leo Barber]

Grant I suspect many of those greenside bunkers that you identify as raised actually started off level with the putting surface.  Due to many years of sand splash and the forces of nature the lips and subsequent slopes have been accentuated.  7 west Royal Melbourne one that comes to mind as does 4th, 6th, 8th Paraparaumu Beach.  I think such naturalisation has enhanced the strategy of these holes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Grant,

For years, tour pros and better golfers chided architects who hid even the base of the flag, precisely because it is unsettling to most.  Outside this web site's "quirk lovers" I doubt many would intentionally try to hide too much of the green.  And yet, it does happen. 

We also try to keep upland water from flowing into bunkers, so be necessity, if you have a frontal bunker, you also have at least a small lip higher than the green to divert water around.  And Leo is right, as those areas tend to build up with sand splash over time.

Side note - Lee Trevino once told me he thought even the slightest slope away from a bunker shot was weird, because he wanted help stopping the ball.  Basically, 99% of greenside bunkers wouldn't fit his criteria!

Bunker visibility is also an issue, and if you want the whole bunker visible, you need to build the base at grade, not cut it in too far.  The usual drill is to build a fill pad up 3-4 feet for the green so you can see that behind the bunker.  Obviously, playing downhill makes all this easier, and I do find its a bit harder to put frontal bunkers in on an uphill shot to the green, and tend to push them to the side.  If you can't see the putting surface playing uphill, at least its nice to have it's sides marked fairly clearly by bunkers.

Others opinions might vary, and as you say, every condition is different.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Don't you think that bunkers which are black, because their sand is in the shade, are more intimidating than bunkers which are light coloured, because their sand is in the sun?

And a great deal depends on how the ball enters the bunker - just trickle in at the front and you may have no escape shot other than sideways or back where you have come from.

Where the bunker is placed is obviously very important but where you are in that bunker is likely to me of greater significance.

[Bill_McBride]

I played Victoria (BC) Golf Club yesterday.  Jeff Mingay has been restoring the bunkering among other work.  The new green side bunkers have that look of raised and the back slope toward the green.   It's really very good looking.  Trevino didn't think hard enough, it's quite possible to use the mound behind the pin as a backstop!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Yes, I guess even a top 10-20 golfer of all time may not have all the shots.....I do think he was thinking of when the pin was close to the bunker he was in, i.e. he is short sided and a delicate shot to a pin 20 ft away or less might roll away from him.  Only if the pin was on the far side would most players consider playing past and spinning back.

I recall seeing Jim Colbert blow the San Antonio Open in about 1984, leaving two in a back bunker, where the pin was close and he needed desperately to get it close.  He was trying to land it just in the fringe since the green rolled away from him and didn't quite make it twice, rolling back down in the deep bunker. 

In tournament situations, at least near the end, players in contention are sort of forced to try to hit it close.  Yes, I understand that back bunker at Oak Hills did exactly what it was supposed to do - punish the aggressive and over cooked shot to that back pin.  But, I also understand the competitive drive that makes they ask why the golf course should also make a shot it demands in those situations nearly impossible to pull off well.

But, as I told another pro one time, as well as Trevino, the biggest thing is we just can't drain much water in that bunker, or the sand quality itself might make the shot even more unplayable.  In the real world, you just cannot have everything sometimes.

Back to the raised bunker bit, overall, bunkers just seem as if they ought to have at least their bottoms in a pit, perhaps owing to our notion of the original bunkers being dug by sheep.  Nothing I dislike more than having the base of the bunker  built up above grade.

[Grant Saunders]

Leo

Those are some good examples of what Im talking about. In particular, the ones on the 4th and 8th at Paraparaumu started me thinking about the topic. I wonder if on 9, a front right bunker with this feature strongly built into it would be sufficient to deter people from hitting down the first fairway. Being faced with a shot over a bunker with the possibility of your ball being kicked across the green into the hazard could remove the need for the out of bounds?

Jeff

Thanks for weighing in with your comments. Its good to hear the nuts and bolts aspects relating to water movement and visibility.

I have come across this feature most often on courses with heavy soils as it is much easier to drain the bunker if the base is closer to level grade with its surroundings then below them. While sticking out lie the proverbial dogs balls they do serve their function well. Also, it tends to represent efficiency in construction for adding bunkers to an existing course. Material cut is used to create the form behind which it then sits in to and a good depth/height differential is generated.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Grant,

Forgetting green side bunkers for a moment, I recall the old Cornish book talking about raising the fw bunkers front lip by at least a foot to assure visibility, and then making sure the base of the bunker slopes up towards the golfer.  Killian and Nugent always did that and it does work surprisingly well for that. 

You can eliminate the "dog balls" look if you truly put enough dirt into it to feather out the slopes.  And, yes, it always drains a little bit better higher, than lower.  Higher is certainly the safer percentage play.......at least in the clay soils I have seen in 90% of my work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()