Less (bunkers) Is More — or not?

[Forrest Richardson]

On a tour of a course today the chap I was with commented how refreshing it was to see a string of holes without any bunkers. On this particular course there are exactly 21 bunkers in all. Holes 1-4 are devoid of any, so are holes 11-14.

How uncommon is this becoming? Are courses being built today caving in to the "bunker, bunker, bunker" syndrome? Are architects taking the easy route to design by over-using the pit of sand?

Let me know...won't you? Thanks.

[Dan Kelly]

Most of the courses I see have more bunkers than they need, and they're too expansive, and they're not penal enough. They too often catch BAD shots rather than DARING BUT IMPERFECT shots.

I couldn't say whether they're the "easy route to design," but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

I think I'm a pretty typical player, in that I enjoy the challenges of pitching and chipping considerably more than I enjoy blasting out of bunkers -- so I wish architects would more commonly build green complexes (like those at Pinehurst No. 2, I gather) that would more commonly use the contours of the ground, rather than sand, to defend themselves.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Forrest,
I believe many newer courses have way too many bunkers. I honestly wonder why a well designed course needs more then 30 bunkers. Yes, many good course have more then 30, but 80-100+, just seems to me to be over kill, and often poor design.

My two pet peeves for poor use of bunkers.
1. Why do so many modern architects put bunkers next to water? Is it really necessary to have redundant hazards?

2. Fairways with bunkers on both sides at the same distance off the tee pinching in the landing area.  

[Bill_McBride]

I think one of the great themes of MacKenzie courses is a hole like #7 at the Valley Club.  There's only one bunker on a 410 yd par 4, but it dominates the strategy of the hole.  The hole is pretty much straight away, maybe a tiny bend to the left.  The green slopes subtly but distinctly from right to left, front to back.  The sole bunker is a fairly large greenside bunker on the right side.  If you uncork a pretty good tee ball down the right side, the safe bailout side of the fairway, and where a straight ball goes which disregards the slight right to left shape, you then have to deal with that bunker.  A shot left of the bunker winds up long left every time!  Only a tee shot drawn into the extreme left side of the fairway has a straight shot which doesn't have to deal with that bunker.  So 410 yds away, a single greenside bunker determines the play of the hole.  Who needs a bunch of bunkers pinching the fairway, or pinching both sides of the green.  Great design, and economical use of sand.

No, I don't think 100+ bunkers are necessary for a great design.  Just a few in the right place!  However, I haven't seen many super holes that didn't have a well placed bunker or two.

[Paul_Turner]

A very interesting question.  Are there many modern designs that rely little on bunkers?  Sometimes the number isn't an accurate gauge because modern bunkers can be so huge.  

Bunkers maybe overdone today, perhaps through less reliance on simple ground contours to add interest.  But unless the terrain is really dramatic, I can't see a course being as good without bunkers (or very few)-they're the best hazard.

Which top British/Irish courses have very few bunkers other than R Ash...?  Portrush has maybe only 20 in the first 16 holes and then quite a lot over the last 2 because the terrain becomes less interesting.  Any more?  Ballybunion doesn't have many, like Portrush,  and has the most on its flat holes 4 and 5.  Cruden Bay, which has great terrain, has few?  I'm going from memory here.

[Forrest Richardson]

Don, my guesses are:

Putting bunkers next to water is often an aesthetic design, and it can be to catch balls which are dribbling, thus saving such a shot from peril and providing a recovery possibility. These are my guesses to your question. I've rarely gone this route.

As to the "fairways with bunkers on both sides at the same distance off the tee pinching in the landing area"...well, I suppose it can be interesting, but is sure is a gamble that many players will "fit" this condition.

[A_Clay_Man]

Panks did one hole at Twin Warriors (#14) without any bunkers. A downhill tee shot to an up hill green. Simple, straight with a subtle two-three tier green with a knob(crown) back left. An easy three, but an easier double or other. Plus it's placement in the route is comparable to a sorbet, cleaning the palate for the courses to come. Come to think of it #15 at Pebble is of a similar sorbet nature.

Forrest- The hideout has many many holes without bunkering but you were blessed with that natural stuff to cause the golfer to tremble in "what if's" hell.

Also, The front at Riverview (1954) has a limited number. Up until recently I think there was only the one. Now, theres about 5. Unless you count the surrounds, which my cat Shamus, seems to appreciate as  bunkeresque.

[TEPaul]

Flynn appeared to believe that bunkers should be no more generally speaking than an architectural supplement when something else of architectural interest was not available. He must have had a high standard of what that something else might be because other than Eaglesmere I'm not aware that he built any holes without bunkering.

Shinnecock is quite indicative though as he went quite light on bunkering in the topographical portion of the course but on the lower flatland holes (#5, #6, #8) he installed a lot of bunkering or massive "undulating sandy waste areas" to make up for the lack of natural interest on those holes.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I was thinking about the bunkering schemes at the recently opened Blackhawk GC, in suburban Edmonton, the other day.

I spent parts of three summers working on the golf course design/construction with Rod Whitman, and it just struck me that golfers DO NOT confront a fairway bunker, from the tee, until the eleventh hole!

In fact, only four holes on the entire golf course feature 'tee shot bunkers': 11, 13, 14, and 15.

There was simply was enough interesting ground contour through the green at some holes, and enough second shot interest at others to permit such minimal bunkering. The bunkers were essentially fit where the landscape suggested they should be. 'It is what it is.' That's all.  

Rod's original sketch of the golf course design featured many more fairway bunkers than we actually constructed, which I find quite interesting in retrospect, thinking about how the course evolved throughout its construction.

There are a number of fine examples at Blackhawk where greenside hazards and contour in and around the putting surfaces dictate a definite strategy, which allowed Rod to provide wide berths off the tee that accommodate less skilled players. Yet, at the same time better golfers can be lulled into 'a false ssense of secutiry' because the design of the green complexes demand thoughtful play and shotmaking in order to score well.

Isn't this type of scheme the ideal in golf course architecture?

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
Clearly many courses are over bunkered.  But there are also courses that have lots of bunkers and they work perfectly (I just played one built by a guy called Crump).  Like most things in golf architecture, there is no right or wrong answer.  Much is site dependent.  Maintenance is another factor.

I wonder how a guy like Steven Smyers would answer this question?  Down at Old Memorial he claims he put in dozens and dozens of bunkers because of water restrictions?  Ask the Super and he'll tell you they are a maintenance nightmare.
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Bill M:  The seventh at The Valley Club may just have one bunker but there are about 90 on the course as a whole, which is about an average number for MacKenzie.

Forrest,

I believe that there are way too many bunkers being built on a lot of courses -- including some of mine!  But paying golfers love the visuals, GCAers love the "strategy," and design associates love to show what beautiful bunkers they can build.

It's more defensible I guess on sand-based courses where they are inexpensive to build ... Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes and Friars Head for starters.  (Those three may have something to do with the current fondness for the type.)  We are building a lot of bunkers in Tasmania also, because it's a choice between losing a ball in the marram grass and finding it in a bunker.  On the other hand, we built a lot of them at Stonewall Two, and I really couldn't tell you why we needed so many.

I did build a course in Evansville Indiana with about thirty bunkers total and a great set of greens ... that's the one David Wigler labeled a "dog track."

Can anyone name a relatively new and highly-regarded course that didn't have a lot of bunkers?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom Doak --

If you build it, we will name it (I hope).

I wish I had a few million lying around that I could afford to lose, so I could commission it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Apache Stronghold doesn't have "a lot" of bunkers does it? I guess if you count the bunkers separating the 10th fwy individually that would add to the count, but they really all work together like one long bunker (haven't seen the course in a while and I know Ron said he was doing some work on the 10th so it may look a little different then I remember) Maybe because of the way the fairway bunkers are placed; I can't remember any holes with fairway bunkers placed on each side in the same general distance off the tee. Okay, I may have to delete my earlier post, but how many bunkers at AS?  

[Forrest Richardson]

To address Tom's question: The Hideout (Utah), which is certainly new (and we would like to think is becoming "highly regarded"), has just 15 bunkers. Adam has played there, but I'm not sure many others here have made the trip.

I appreciate these comments. Mark brings up good points. However, it is my general feeling that bunkers are well overused. I agree with Tom's comments.

Are bunkers a crutch that is stifling creativity? Of both designer, client and builder? When in doubt, build a pit with sand? Would new courses and remodels be better served if architects looked at other options; the ground game, contouring, ditches, etc?

[mike_malone]

 At Rolling Green,Flynn had only 7 fairway bunker locations originally(counting 2 clusters of 3 small bunkers as one each)This is on the 14 non par threes.


   TEPaul
    I believe this for the reason you mentioned--the land created enough interest.

[TEPaul]

TomD;

A course that's relatively new---Redtail (Donald Steele) in Ontario has only 30 bunkers total. Those thirty bunkers do have enough of a impact on play though that it feels the golf course has far more bunkers than just thirty although all of them have faces grassed all the way down to almost flat floors so they're very shadowy and hard to make out but ther're really well placed. The reason there may be so few is the clients didn't want to spend much on the course--so Steele did an excellent job of making what he did there bunker-wise go a long way.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom D, yes I know Valley has a lot of bunkers, just using #7 as an example of how 90 bunkers isn't essential to great golf design!  

[Forrest Richardson]

At a very early work of mine, Grande Valley (Arizona), we had just five bunkers. Yes, five. And now, many years later, the owner has allowed them to grass in...feeling they were apparently a bother. Plenty of ground game and challenge, but I miss those few, selected five!

[Tom_Doak]

Don M.:  You're right, Apache Stronghold doesn't have that many bunkers ... we deliberately tried to limit them on that project.  And a couple of low-handicap GOLF DIGEST voters told me they would have rated the course higher if there were more greenside bunkers for "definition.  In fact, I had left them out just so that kind of player wouldn't be able to focus as easily and would have a more difficult recovery if the green was missed.

I've seen Redtail, not the Hideout.  Unfortunately, I suspect both would be rated higher if there were more bunkers.

What are the courses which have stirred the most interest on this site over the past three years?

Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes
Friar's Head
Rustic Canyon
The Kingsley Club
Barona Creek
that one picture of Purgatory

They've all got bunkers to spare, and people are gaga over them ... especially the people on this site.  That's why everyone is building too damn many bunkers.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Doak,

Isn't there a dramatic difference between the bunkers of Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes compared to something like Oakmont or Riviera?

When looking at Sand Hills and portions of Friar's Head I would hesitate to label some portions of the course a bunker, per se.  Of course they are sand and they play like bunkers, but aren't they more an extension of the natural land?

Furthermore, isn't this why everyone considers sand the finest base for building a course upon?  Aside from the drainage advantage, there is that natural sand hazard feel.  

That same feel that George Crump created at Pine Valley.  
Where the hazards blend seamlessly into the native.

I suspect we like it a lot because it reminds us of the natural links courses.  

[TEPaul]

mdugger:

I very much like your sentiments about the bunkering at PVGC. I don't know whether it's because I know the course so well and for so long but to me all the bunkering there just seems to naturally belong where it is.

[Doug Wright]

Mdugger,

Excellent post. A la TEP and Pine Valley, the naturalness of the bunkering at Sand Hills blew me away. Of course, not every site lends itself to same. As some trial lawyer turned golf course architect once said about bunkering, "If it don't fit, don't build it..."

All The Best,

[Neal_Meagher]

To echo what Tom Paul is getting at, I agree completely with the notion of natural sandy sites begatting artificial sand hazards.  This is a "natural" compliment to the existing features and when done correctly (PVGC, Cypress Pt.) accentuates what the architect is trying to do.

Which brings up an ongoing conundrum within my own little pea brain, and that is the usage of completely and utterly man-made appearing "sand things" within a golf landscape.  What spurred this along was an experience I had with a certain gyrogolfer with whom I played a very well regarded new course that is actually up for a slew of best new awards.

While not meant as a blanket negative toward the architect involved, who did a superb job with difficult terrain and requisite housing requirements, I am questioning certain green to bunker relationships.  On a site such as this one, which is far from sandy and very hilly with more clay than anything else, I find it difficult to visually digest a smooth and gently meandering green edge right next to a large and swooping Thomas-like wild-thang turf finger.  The two just don't work together.  Seems to me that the green edge of the bunker should also be somewhat muted with the wild-thang finger penetrating in from the opposite side as if it were a pretuberance (my word, just made it up) that ties into an existing or made-up land form.

It is one thing to just go ahead and say "sand bunkers don't naturally exist here, so we'll just be bloody bold and do it anyway".  That is what happens all the time, after all, but it doesn't mean it's the best way.  I guess what I'm saying, and it pains me to say it, but I agree with Forrest.  Either let natural grasses eat into edges of ragged bunkers to help them blend or don't have so many of them to begin with.  I agree that bunkers have become a weak substitute for truly creative shaped dirt with grasses planted upon it.

[Forrest Richardson]

It pains me to hear you say it pains you to agree with me. But I agree with you, even if you didn't have to agree with me. I feel that far too many courses deploy bunkers for the pure "tradition" of doing so. It is like an icon or button on a keyboard that just keeps getting punched.

Like I noted: When in doubt, use a bunker.

[Doug Wright]

Forrest et al,

Not to be (too) cynical, but which looks better in a golf mag or brochure--all green or green puctuated by pearly white?

All The Best,