[Patrick_Mucci]

the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?

[jeffwarne]

Do topped shots go further now?

[Steve Lang]

  Pat,

Define "most play".  Is it >50% or what percentile and I assume from member tees or where?   

[Greg Tallman]

Case by case basis... no way for a blanket/formulaic approach, much like course design on a raw piece of land.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Define "most play".  Is it >50% or what percentile and I assume from member tees or where?   

Steve,

Like "obscenity" I think you know it when you see it.  A bunker, originally intended to perform a function, that has been rendered obsolete, by the modern golfer.

In theory, the member tees and the championship tees were intended to bring a common DZ into play for those with a disparity in ability.

I was thinking of the 16th hole at GCGC where there's a series of three bunkers that form a visual barrier from the tee.
In earlier times, they were highly functional.  Today, they're vestigial features, save for appearance, for most.

So, do you move them, or leave them and replicate them in the current DZ ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Case by case basis... no way for a blanket/formulaic approach, much like course design on a raw piece of land.

Greg,

Out of play is out of play, no matter which course you're on.
Vestigial features are a universal

[William_G]

please define DZ

and what is a "similar bunker", LOL

just joking

seems like the tee would be the place to start, LOL

[Steve Lang]

  Ok Pat, while I've never seen the 16th at GCGC I can make analogy when I play forward tees with Ms Sheila and I see such bunkers as mere aiming points to bypass the course's defenses..  once one knows they're no longer relevant I'd say delete and re-establish, however,  I'd be concerned with what group they may still be relevant to, so perhaps better to add additional fairway bunker(s) if maintenance costs can be  accommodated.

That's why i was interested in whether the subject feature was 51% or perhaps 80% irrelevant.. the latter perhaps justifying full replacement.   though from experience at the 5th on our old Oaks Course, fairway bunkers were in fact moved out further for the big hitters and in doing so made the hole easier for lesser hitters..  can't win for losing on this one...

will be a 50 : 50 split probably on opinion

[Jason Topp]

On a course exposed to a lot of wind, fairway bunkers do not become irrelevant.  

I agree with Greg.  It is difficult to generalize.  If a bunker no longer serves its original function, it may still provide an interesting function - visually, for different levels of player or otherwise.  Whether another bunker is needed depends on what else is there.  Relative importance of upkeep costs is an important factor.  The likelihood that tees will be lengthened is another factor.

[Michael Felton]

One of my clubs back at home (Effingham) had an investigation into how much use some of the bunkers got. They were able to tell because the rakes the green staff used were different from the ones left in the bunkers. There were a couple that were found to get very little use and because they cost money to keep up, they filled them in. I was never particularly happy with the concept, because just because a bunker gets little to no use doesn't mean it doesn't fill a purpose. A bunker on the corner of a dogleg that gets little use because it pushes everyone to the far side of the hole, from whence perhaps the approach is much harder, is still serving a useful purpose that could be lost by filling it in.

That said if it genuinely isn't serving a purpose, then yes it probably should be moved or filled in. Bunkers cost money to maintain and if they serve no useful purpose, then why waste it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

please define DZ

and what is a "similar bunker", LOL

just joking

seems like the tee would be the place to start, LOL

William,

I should have included the situation where there was no room to bring the tee back due to the land locked nature of the course

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth

[Mark McKeever]

Pat, a few of the dz bunkers at cricket that have become obsolete have been pushed further out with the resto to challenge today's players.

Mark

[Thomas Dai]

the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?

Yee olde approach - remove the sand and leave just a grass hollow. If over time, say a year, the grass hollow fills up with divots you'll know it probably should have been left as a sand bunker. If there are hardly any divots in the grass hollow look further up the fairway to see where most of the divots are and install a new bunker in that spot.
All the best.

[jeffwarne]

Fill it in

Otherwise, whay would fuel the next restoration?

[Steve Lang]

Steve,

Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth

Do I have this right?  Seem to remember your interest in the pond hazard left of green on an old thread..



100 - 190 to clear that last fairway trap (of three on the left).. are these your concern?  GE shows a slight downhill topography, so do they really catch the eye?  
 Seems like ladies would still see them as a challenge...but not men who can hit 220 yes ?   Want to add another couple on the edge or infiltrating into the fairway

[Peter Pallotta]

If irrelevant bunkers were removed, I think Pete Dye would lose half the bunkers on half his courses. So, assuming that PD knows more about how bunkers "work" than I do, and not hearing anything about Pete going back and filling in a quarter of all his bunkers, I have to say "leave them alone".

Peter

[J_ Crisham]

Steve,

Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth

Do I have this right?  Seem to remember your interest in the pond hazard left of green on an old thread..



100 - 190 to clear that last fairway trap (of three on the left).. are these your concern?  GE shows a slight downhill topography, so do they really catch the eye?  
 Seems like ladies would still see them as a challenge...but not men who can hit 220 yes ?   Want to add another couple on the edge or infiltrating into the fairway

Steve, since there are no women at GC men's club the issue is moot as to what they see as a challenge. I should add that I did hit a tee shot on 4 in Susan Lucci's backyard one time while playing here. Would not have minded seeing her!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

Take a look at the 16th on Google Earth

Do I have this right?  Seem to remember your interest in the pond hazard left of green on an old thread..

YES



100 - 190 to clear that last fairway trap (of three on the left).. are these your concern?

YES
100 & 190 carries from where ? 

GE shows a slight downhill topography, so do they really catch the eye?


YES  

Seems like ladies would still see them as a challenge...but not men who can hit 220 yes ? 

I can assure you that they present NO challenge to lady golfers.
I'm not sure on your yardage calculations.
From the back tee, the hole is only 405 yards and it's measured as a dogleg  

Want to add another couple on the edge or infiltrating into the fairway

It's the set of three bunkers at the begining of the fairway, on the left of the photo, not the three flanking the left fairway.

I'd like to see today's bunkers mirror their original intent

[Steve Wilson]

jeffwarne:

You wrote: "Do topped shots go further now?"  In deference to Dan Kelly I omit the emoticons.

That being said, do you think it's civil or polite to call attention to Jason's shots in this manner?  But now that you have I feel free to inquire, aren't all of Jason shots topped? i

  

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You asked about the distances.  See below.  The carry from today's back tee is around 190.  What was the carry in the era that you feel exhibited the "original intent"?

What was the "original intent" of the bunkers.

[Sean_A]

I am generally not in favour of leaving so called obsolete bunkers and adding more relevant bunkers.  If the bunker scheme no longer works its time to review its effectiveness.  But the question we must always ask is work for who?  Deciding on bunker placement is far easier once we accept that bunkers were never meant to be anything close to 100% in play for 100% of players.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Nice story about James Braid and Mullingar GC in Ireland as quoted from the MGC website/history -

"The story of how James Braid designed this marvelous course has gone down in Irish folklore. Brought over from Scotland by the old Dublin boat train from Glasgow, he arrived at Mullingar with the early morning dew, and after a little "liquid refreshment" to enliven his flagging energy, simply asked for "a hatchet and three dozen wooden tees". Then, before the astonished eyes of the founder members, he simply chopped and hacked his way into the middle of the then formidable gorse. With his trademark walrus moustache flapping in the wind, in four hours flat he had "pegged off" the now famous eighteen holes and greens, using the little wooden golf tees as markers. He then simply pointed to where the clubhouse should be built, handed the members his bill, and stepped back into his motorcar for the return journey to Dublin.

This story by itself would be incredible enough, given the totally incredible amounts of money and man-hours that are now spent on course design, but it doesn't end here. As the course was nearing completion, someone suddenly realized that no provision had been made for any sand traps. An urgent telegram was sent to the unflappable Braid, asking him to return forthwith and "finish" his design. By return, a telegram winged its way to the members. "Play your new course for a month, and where you see the most divot marks, that's where you put your bunkers!" As far as is known, that is exactly what was done, and a more sinister and wickedly placed set of sand traps you would be hard pushed to find anywhere!"

All the best

[Tom Culley]

The top shot trench bunker on the first at the Scared Nine seems relevant for this discussion.

The bunker sits no more than 30 yards away from the tee, and i struggle to see how this bunker was ever well placed. The average player when the course was designed (i imagine), will have been able to carry this with no trouble. I therefore assume that the bunker is designed with the very worst players in mind.


I guess what i'm trying to say is... i don't understand the design philosophy of punishing golfers who's 'game' is already punishing enough.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I think history will show that removal or relocation is preferred, except at courses of real historical merit.  There is some good and bad.

Sure, maintenance costs can always use a pruning somewhere to keep them in line.  Unused bunkers are certainly a big candidate.  Also, would someone please explain to me why we have top shot bunkers anyway?  Since Mac and ANGC, I think it has been proven that the topped tee shot prevents itself from reaching the green on the next shot, so why add another stroke to the golfers misery in  most cases?  Remember Mac's admonishing that the average guy shouldn't be piling up a big score.

On the other side, many bunkers are integral to the artistic composition.  And in the case above of the 16th, 190 is probably a pretty stout, but accomplishable, carry for their membership, even if the top 1% are more concerned about the bunkers further down the fairway.  I think of top shot bunkers at more like 120 yards.

So, as a good general rule of thumb, yes.  As a blanket statement for ALL courses, no.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()