Does Augusta Really Need Any Bunkers?

[Tim_Weiman]

The relatively small number of bunkers gives a clue, IMO.

Wouldn't Augusta be nearly as good a course if every single bunker were removed?

For members play?

For play during the Masters?

[Mac Plumart]

Hmmm...

I'm not sure...I don't think so.  But I'm not sure.  What about the two bunkers in front of two green...do they add something to the interest of the approach?  I think they do.  You?

[Jason Thurman]

The bunker on 10 is great, regardless of whether it's totally out of play or not.

Maybe Augusta's bunkering is largely cosmetic, but that doesn't mean it would be just as good without it. Aesthetics matter when you're spending four hours looking at something.

And I'm with Mac about the bunkers at 2. I also think the bunkers off the tee at 5 have a big effect on play, as do the landing zone bunkers on 18, at least for pros to force their hand a bit. The bunkers at 7 also probably aren't popular on GCA, but I think they're a big part of what makes that hole unique in the context of the test Augusta presents - the narrowest drive followed by the shallowest approach on the course to result in the most precision-oriented hole on the property.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mac:

The bunkers fronting #2 green may contribute as much as any on the course, both for members (on their third shot) or Masters going for the green in two.

I am not trying to argue there aren't some examples where the hole might be better with the bunkers. Rather, I suspect if you removed them all, you would still have an awfully good course due to the topography and the greens.

[Tim_Weiman]

The bunker on 10 is great, regardless of whether it's totally out of play or not.

Maybe Augusta's bunkering is largely cosmetic, but that doesn't mean it would be just as good without it. Aesthetics matter when you're spending four hours looking at something.

And I'm with Mac about the bunkers at 2. I also think the bunkers off the tee at 5 have a big effect on play, as do the landing zone bunkers on 18, at least for pros to force their hand a bit. The bunkers at 7 also probably aren't popular on GCA, but I think they're a big part of what makes that hole unique in the context of the test Augusta presents - the narrowest drive followed by the shallowest approach on the course to result in the most precision-oriented hole on the property.

Jason,

I'd probably vote for #12 requiring the most precision, but yes, the character of #7 would change. However, every time I have stood by the right side of #7 green, I am impressed with the green itself. Feels like the hole would be damn good without those bunkers.

As for #5, granted the bunkers impact the line of play, but I am wondering if the hole is a bit like #5 at Merion which also strikes me as not needing any bunkers.

[Mac Plumart]

Tim...

I think you actually bring up some great points.  I wonder if bunkers are over used in general, not just at Augusta.  Perhaps more eye candy.  I think it is 11 at Streamsong Blue that has, almost, no bunkers...but the rest of the course has a bunch of them...and the hole is great...IMO.

A well placed hollow, hump, swale, or simple grass bunker might do the trick...and avoid the cost and maintenance of a sand bunker.

Good for for thought.

[MClutterbuck]

The fairway bunker on #1 changes the drive completely. Front 9 par 3 bunkers are not needed, but 12 and 16 do need the bunkers. Front right position on 16 is a tough position in part due to the bunker. 18 needs the bunkers framing the green. Furthermore, the bunkers are beautiful, even though I like the 1950 bunkers better.

[MClutterbuck]

Tim...

I think you actually bring up some great points.  I wonder if bunkers are over used in general, not just at Augusta.  Perhaps more eye candy.  I think it is 11 at Streamsong Blue that has, almost, no bunkers...but the rest of the course has a bunch of them...and the hole is great...IMO.

A well placed hollow, hump, swale, or simple grass bunker might do the trick...and avoid the cost and maintenance of a sand bunker.

Good for for thought.

Mac,

In my mind, the biggest reason to have few bunkers is that the average pro is much better from a bunker than from a fast and firm green surround with good countours, whilst the average amateur is much better from outside the bunker than from inside. A course with few bunkers makes it easier for the amateurs whilst not making it easier for the pros.

[Tim_Weiman]

The fairway bunker on #1 changes the drive completely. Front 9 par 3 bunkers are not needed, but 12 and 16 do need the bunkers. Front right position on 16 is a tough position in part due to the bunker. 18 needs the bunkers framing the green. Furthermore, the bunkers are beautiful, even though I like the 1950 bunkers better.

I don't see #12 or #16 needing bunkers for Members play. For the Masters, sure, the bunkers add some tension on #12, though I am a bit less sure of that on #16.

As for the #1 fairway bunker, I see it affecting the Masters, but not very much for Members.

My point here is not really to argue all the bunkers should be removed, but merely to point out Augusta would still be damn good if they all were removed.

[MClutterbuck]

The fairway bunker on #1 changes the drive completely. Front 9 par 3 bunkers are not needed, but 12 and 16 do need the bunkers. Front right position on 16 is a tough position in part due to the bunker. 18 needs the bunkers framing the green. Furthermore, the bunkers are beautiful, even though I like the 1950 bunkers better.

I don't see #12 or #16 needing bunkers for Members play. For the Masters, sure, the bunkers add some tension on #12, though I am a bit less sure of that on #16.

As for the #1 fairway bunker, I see it affecting the Masters, but not very much for Members.

My point here is not really to argue all the bunkers should be removed, but merely to point out Augusta would still be damn good if they all were removed.

Your point is well taken and I agree it would still be a spectacular golf course.

The bunker on #1 does affect the shot from the Members tee and actually is probably the toughest drive on the course. It also is probably the toughest hole to get on the green in regulation from those tees.

On #12, for amateurs, being in the back bunker is really tough. While the front bunker actually is a benefit in disguise, preventing balls from rolling back into the water.


M

[Joel_Stewart]

It's been a mystery to me why ANGC allowed EA to rebuild the classic course for the Tiger Woods game when the bunkering looked far better in the old days.  To me, ANGC does not need more bunkers, it needs to restore its old bunkers.

[Mike_Young]

12 would be a much harder hole if the front bunker was removed as well as the front bunkers on 7. 

[Tim_Weiman]

The fairway bunker on #1 changes the drive completely. Front 9 par 3 bunkers are not needed, but 12 and 16 do need the bunkers. Front right position on 16 is a tough position in part due to the bunker. 18 needs the bunkers framing the green. Furthermore, the bunkers are beautiful, even though I like the 1950 bunkers better.

I don't see #12 or #16 needing bunkers for Members play. For the Masters, sure, the bunkers add some tension on #12, though I am a bit less sure of that on #16.

As for the #1 fairway bunker, I see it affecting the Masters, but not very much for Members.

My point here is not really to argue all the bunkers should be removed, but merely to point out Augusta would still be damn good if they all were removed.

Your point is well taken and I agree it would still be a spectacular golf course.

The bunker on #1 does affect the shot from the Members tee and actually is probably the toughest drive on the course. It also is probably the toughest hole to get on the green in regulation from those tees.

On #12, for amateurs, being in the back bunker is really tough. While the front bunker actually is a benefit in disguise, preventing balls from rolling back into the water.


M

I agree. For Members the back bunker on #12 is not the place to be. Also agree with Mike Young that removing the front bunker would only make the hole more difficult.

[Terry Lavin]

12 would be a much harder hole if the front bunker was removed as well as the front bunkers on 7. 

Harder, but not necessarily better?

[jeffwarne]

Does any inland course really need any bunkers?

[Nigel Islam]

My caddie at The Old Course made the comment that it did not need any of their bunkers at all. I was kind of taken back by it but it defintely got me thinking some.

[Jim Nugent]

In my mind, the biggest reason to have few bunkers is that the average pro is much better from a bunker than from a fast and firm green surround with good countours, whilst the average amateur is much better from outside the bunker than from inside.

Is that true?  Median up and down from greenside bunkers last year on the PGA tour was 50.66%.  Barely half the time.  A fair number of players only got up and down in the 30's, and one player was in the 20's.   

PGA Tour also has a stat called "scrambling from other locations."  It shows "The percent of time that a player misses the green in regulation, but still makes par or better when the birdie stroke is taken from a location other than the greenside bunker, rough, or fringe."  The median there last year was 58.59%.  Only one player was in the 30s, and no one in the 20s. 

How many places at ANGC would a pro rather be in sand, instead of putting/chipping off short grass? 

[Sean_A]

Well, I disagree and agree.  Sure, practically any course could have its bunkers removed if other features were used more prominently.  On the other hand, 15-20 well placed bunkers (or even less) can really enhance the strategy and variety of a design.  The issue is often bunkers are used as a crutch by archies I spose because it is expected and they can't be bothered to buck expectations unless its a matter of economics. 

I have my new go to course for bunkers; Cleeve Cloud.  Bring in an archie with the remit of designing a new bunker scheme of not more than 20ish bunkers and that course could be transformed.  The site is so expansive that huge bunkers could be employed and I think would make the course much better.  The bunkers (maybe 15) in place are wishy washy waste of time things for the most part.  They could literally be 3-4x the size in many places and gathering.  Combine the bunker aesthetic/placement with the hills and great views and I think Cleeve Cloud would easily be top 100 England if not GB&I.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

If sand were the same color as the grass then many bunkers would go away.  Bunkers are often a crutch for creating contrast....

[Niall C]

Mike

There seems to be a fad with some designers that bunkers should be flat bottomed without any sand in the face and therefore you don't get the contrast which I think is a great pity. I think a bit of contrast adds interest and in some respects makes it easier as it provides a focus and therefore helps the player to execute the shot but then in other instances can make it harder as an in your face bunker can be very intimidating for some. For sure, not the only way to create contrast but certainly an easy way of doing it and one that increases the variety of shots.

Niall

[Tim_Weiman]

Well, I disagree and agree.  Sure, practically any course could have its bunkers removed if other features were used more prominently.  On the other hand, 15-20 well placed bunkers (or even less) can really enhance the strategy and variety of a design.  The issue is often bunkers are used as a crutch by archies I spose because it is expected and they can't be bothered to buck expectations unless its a matter of economics. 

I have my new go to course for bunkers; Cleeve Cloud.  Bring in an archie with the remit of designing a new bunker scheme of not more than 20ish bunkers and that course could be transformed.  The site is so expansive that huge bunkers could be employed and I think would make the course much better.  The bunkers (maybe 15) in place are wishy washy waste of time things for the most part.  They could literally be 3-4x the size in many places and gathering.  Combine the bunker aesthetic/placement with the hills and great views and I think Cleeve Cloud would easily be top 100 England if not GB&I.

Ciao

Sean,

I don't know that I would be prepared to say practically any course could have all it's bunkers removed and remain a very high quality course. Some yes. Some probably not. Augusta is pretty blessed in terms of topography and, IMO, contributes a lot to not really needing bunkers. Obviously the greens help a lot also.

But, let's consider another great course with great greens. Could you really remove all the bunkers at Winged Foot and have as minimal an impact as doing so at Augusta would?

Another great course to debate would be Oakmont. The bunkers are a big part of the design, but again the topography offers a pretty darn good course without them, IMO.

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian S:

I'm no expert on TOC, but I share your skepticism. The bunkers seem pretty darn important, e.g., the Road Hole.

[Thomas Dai]

I'd take that one with a grain of salt!

I'd take that one with a grain of salt sand!

Does any inland course really need any bunkers?

+1 to this, with the exception of inland courses which are built on sand. Unfortunately sand is very photogenic when seen next to (overly) green grass.

With regard to ANGC/The Masters, I find it interesting to watch the Tour Pros play shots around the greens from really tight lies. So much variety - putt it, hybrid it, bump-n-trickle it, lob it, get overly cute and chunk it and roll further away or even do a Larry Mize special on the 11th. To re-copy the passage on page 24 of George Waters splendid new book ' Sand and Golf' that I previous posted on the thread about Adam Scotts ANGC/Masters comments -

"In many ways Royal Melbourne is what MacKenzie intended Augusta National to be - an inland course that embodies the best principles of links golf. The wide fairways and strategic options allow players of all abilities to make their way around the course, while the hazards and greens keep the best players on their toes."

atb

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas,

I have only played or visited Royal Melbourne one time, but relative to Augusta I think more would be lost if all the bunkers were removed.

Maybe I am just enamored with the bunkering at RM which I think fit much better than at Augusta.

Do you think RM would lose much by removing the bunkers?

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas,
I have only played or visited Royal Melbourne one time, but relative to Augusta I think more would be lost if all the bunkers were removed.
Maybe I am just enamored with the bunkering at RM which I think fit much better than at Augusta
Do you think RM would lose much by removing the bunkers?

Tim,

No I'm not suggesting RM be modified - that would be akin to removing some features from a painting of the Mona Lisa - plus it's not that far from Port Phillip Bay and is on sand so that's a no-no from me.

Perhaps I should have edited the RM reference out of the quote extract, namely - "MacKenzie intended Augusta National to be - an inland course that embodies the best principles of links golf. The wide fairways and strategic options allow players of all abilities to make their way around the course, while the hazards and greens keep the best players on their toes."

"Wide fairways and strategic options", nice words, and these days I don't think bunkers count as hazards, as IMO they pretty much fail to keep any decent player on his toes, except if they're small, deep pits and pots with high banks or un-raked areas, but the 'bunkers-as-hazards' subject has been covered herein on many thread before, so I won't go down that line.

Bye the way, there is an interesting article in one this months UK golf magazines with diagrams of each ANGC hole in the early 1930's and now. The bunker and pond positioning immediately catches the eye but the tree positioning, or rather lack of tree positioning in the older diagrams is interesting, as is the 'photo' posted above, ie the EA Sports one.

atb