[Ben Hollerbach]

With much discussion around the desire for natural minimalist golf courses and how a bunkers style can drastically change the look of a course, as we have seen at courses like No. 2, Mid Pines, and Old Town, I can’t help but feel that the existence of a sand bunker on an overwhelming number of parkland courses is the antithesis of natural.

Living in north Georgia, at the base of the Appalachians, There is very little sand mixed in with our find Georgia clay and a truly natural golf course in this part of the world would be sand free. I envision a course build over rolling and rocky terrain moving between meadows and glades, utilizing the natural clearings within the tree lines to define hole corridors. Interest and challenge would come from the periodic and acute topography changes found within the foothills.

I think to the Annapolis Golf Club, with its grass filled bunkers, and wonder if that is not a better challenge to the player than sand. So while the absence of sand bunker may to some hurt courses build on less than stellar property, It would seem that the challenge could easily be built into ones design.

With that being said, Would it be possible to build a world class course that did not use a single sand trap? Is there a course that exist today that would fit the bill and does it get its due appreciation?

My concern would be the lack of visual contrast would make the course look “unfinished” and it would not be accepted by the general public, regardless of its playing quality.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I just played the best sand-free course I've ever seen, last month:  Arrowtown, in New Zealand.  You can find a couple of photo threads about it here.

Instead of bunkers, it has a lot of contour, including a bunch of mostly-turf-covered rock outcroppings that serve as definite hazards.  It also uses trees as hazards (especially on the back nine), and has smallish greens.

I've always thought as you said in your last paragraph, that the lack of bunkers would draw all the attention and be considered a negative, but Arrowtown has made me revise that belief.  I might do a sand-free course one day, in the right situation.  But I do love sandy sites!

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

While playing Mid Pines with Fred Muller last fall, we were discussing the renovations and the inclusion of more sand waste area. Both in agreement that the renovations had improved the property Fred echoed a comment from Mike Keiser about how every great course is built on a sandy site. Beyond Oakmont I had a hard time countering that point.

Being that much of continental land is not sand based, I think maybe the question is what characteristics of inland courses could better be used to increase their strategy and quality. Often when I play a good bunkerless hole I don't realize its without a sand hazard until later, as the hole had enough character to keep my attention elsewhere. This seems to work on a periodic basis as these holes exist sparingly, but probably could not keep a players attention for an entire 18.

As you described in Arrowtown, the course used multiple types features to provide the challenge, which is most likely not available on most sites. I think it would take a site with a tremendous amount of topographical variance to build a sand free course, the land would need to "distract" the player for the whole 18 to make them forget about the lack of sand.

[Garland Bayley]

Architect Bill Diddel (http://billdiddel.com/) (Pete Dye's mentor) had a period in his career during which he tried to build bunkerless golf courses.

Having only played his two courses in MT, I don't know if any of his bunkerless courses qualified as great.

[Brandon Urban]

Great topic, Ben.

I've often thought about this type of course for the Flint Hills area of Kansas. The region is full of fantastic, native grass covered rolling prairie, but definitely not sandy. I imagine the right architect could use the hollows, humps, and hillocks as great natural hazards. There are exposed rock formations that could be incorporated, as well. Even just mown down prairie grass would make a good hazard with the uneven lies that the golfer would experience. Sometimes I think the sand bunker looks completely out of place on courses in this area of the state. It would definitely be an interesting experiment.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

While playing Mid Pines with Fred Muller last fall, we were discussing the renovations and the inclusion of more sand waste area. Both in agreement that the renovations had improved the property Fred echoed a comment from Mike Keiser about how every great course is built on a sandy site. Beyond Oakmont I had a hard time countering that point.

Being that much of continental land is not sand based, I think maybe the question is what characteristics of inland courses could better be used to increase their strategy and quality. Often when I play a good bunkerless hole I don't realize its without a sand hazard until later, as the hole had enough character to keep my attention elsewhere. This seems to work on a periodic basis as these holes exist sparingly, but probably could not keep a players attention for an entire 18.

As you described in Arrowtown, the course used multiple types features to provide the challenge, which is most likely not available on most sites. I think it would take a site with a tremendous amount of topographical variance to build a sand free course, the land would need to "distract" the player for the whole 18 to make them forget about the lack of sand.

Ben,

There are bunkers on the course, but you could remove most and still leave golfers plenty to chew on at Ballybunion.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben,

There are bunkers on the course, but you could remove most and still leave golfers plenty to chew on at Ballybunion.

Tim:

That's true, but I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would build a bunker free course on a sandy site where they are so easy to create.  There is always the temptation to have "a few" and it's easier to resist if getting the sand to the site is a hassle.

The other two best sand-free courses I've seen are Painswick and Royal Ashdown Forest.  At the latter, the course is in a Royal forest and bunkers are not allowed by rule of the Queen.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Great topic, Ben.

I've often thought about this type of course for the Flint Hills area of Kansas. The region is full of fantastic, native grass covered rolling prairie, but definitely not sandy. I imagine the right architect could use the hollows, humps, and hillocks as great natural hazards. There are exposed rock formations that could be incorporated, as well. Even just mown down prairie grass would make a good hazard with the uneven lies that the golfer would experience. Sometimes I think the sand bunker looks completely out of place on courses in this area of the state. It would definitely be an interesting experiment.

One thing to remember here is that if the site is not sandy, it's a little harder for the architect to make use of natural features like hollows, because they don't drain as easily. Royal Ashdown Forest is successful primarily because of the variety in vegetation, the heather covered humps and the streams that wind their way through a few holes. It's also on a free(ish) draining site.

Tim - I get your point with Ballybunion but there are better examples. Ballybunion has 61 bunkers on the old course which hardly qualifies as just a few. Increased from the 43 when Tom Watson did his work there.

[Thomas Dai]

Depends on the definition of great, but these are sand free courses -

Kington
Church Stretton
Welshpool
Minchinhampton Old
Painswick (as previously mentioned)

All upland/hilltop courses, which I guess emphasises Ally's point about hollows and drainage.

atb

[Tim_Weiman]

Great topic, Ben.

I've often thought about this type of course for the Flint Hills area of Kansas. The region is full of fantastic, native grass covered rolling prairie, but definitely not sandy. I imagine the right architect could use the hollows, humps, and hillocks as great natural hazards. There are exposed rock formations that could be incorporated, as well. Even just mown down prairie grass would make a good hazard with the uneven lies that the golfer would experience. Sometimes I think the sand bunker looks completely out of place on courses in this area of the state. It would definitely be an interesting experiment.

One thing to remember here is that if the site is not sandy, it's a little harder for the architect to make use of natural features like hollows, because they don't drain as easily. Royal Ashdown Forest is successful primarily because of the variety in vegetation, the heather covered humps and the streams that wind their way through a few holes. It's also on a free(ish) draining site.

Tim - I get your point with Ballybunion but there are better examples. Ballybunion has 61 bunkers on the old course which hardly qualifies as just a few. Increased from the 43 when Tom Watson did his work there.

Ally,

I was cool with Watson's work. My only point is that most of the land on the Old course at Ballybunion is good enough that if you did remove most of the bunkers, it would still be a damn good golf course. Ditto for Augusta - a completely different site. Not true everywhere, though.

I think of it this way: at Winged Foot "architecture" is the star. At Ballybunion, the land itself shines.

But, even where the land shines building some bunkers will probably make sense.

One funny thing. When Whistling Straights was built, some of the advertising called it Pete Dye's tribute to Ballybunion. But, I sure have never seen a hundred bunkers per hole playing Ballybunion like there are at Whistling Straights.

[Ian Andrew]

Tim,

I felt that Carne (original 18) would have been an absolute "rockstar" without a single bunker.
The setting and contour was enough to keep your full attention all round.

Each hole was far worse off with the bunkering that was likely added and very poorly done.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

I felt that Carne (original 18) would have been an absolute "rockstar" without a single bunker.
The setting and contour was enough to keep your full attention all round.

Each hole was far worse off with the bunkering that was likely added and very poorly done.

Ian,

Does it make sense for an architect to first design the golf course without bunkers and then selectively add them?

Not saying this approach would work everywhere, but are there sites this might be a good approach?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,

I felt that Carne (original 18) would have been an absolute "rockstar" without a single bunker.
The setting and contour was enough to keep your full attention all round.

Each hole was far worse off with the bunkering that was likely added and very poorly done.

There are 21 bunkers on the Hackett eighteen at Carne and I agree with Ian that the course would be equally good without any of them - bar perhaps a cheeky little centreline bunker on the 5th and a nice approach bunker 40 yards short and left on the 13th.... I'm not sure I can agree it would be considerably better without them though...

We put 16 in on the new nine and they all interact with play a bit more than most on the original course... Perhaps I'll get the chance to rework one or two of those original ones...

Ally

[Jon Wiggett]

There are 21 bunkers on the Hackett eighteen at Carne and I agree with Ian that the course would be equally good without any of them - bar perhaps a cheeky little centreline bunker on the 5th and a nice approach bunker 40 yards short and left on the 13th.... I'm not sure I can agree it would be considerably better without them though...

Ally

The quote by Ally got me thinking. If a manmade feature adds nothing to the course isn't it is at best irrelevant and more than likely detrimental to the quality of the course? There are in my opinion so many courses that are diminished by unnecessary extras.

Jon

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ian,

Does it make sense for an architect to first design the golf course without bunkers and then selectively add them?

Not saying this approach would work everywhere, but are there sites this might be a good approach?

I feel like this practice was the best way to correctly place hazards but in todays world the average player/membership would not accept a "half completed" golf course for the time it would take to evaluate plan and bunker accordingly. Most likely if this was the common practice for bunkering a course, on average courses would have half the bunkers they currently do.

[Ben Hollerbach]

There are 21 bunkers on the Hackett eighteen at Carne and I agree with Ian that the course would be equally good without any of them - bar perhaps a cheeky little centreline bunker on the 5th and a nice approach bunker 40 yards short and left on the 13th.... I'm not sure I can agree it would be considerably better without them though...

Ally

The quote by Ally got me thinking. If a manmade feature adds nothing to the course isn't it is at best irrelevant and more than likely detrimental to the quality of the course? There are in my opinion so many courses that are diminished by unnecessary extras.

Jon

Jon,

While direct and purposeful man made feature can have a prolific impact on a course, they often seem to be few and far between. I would agree that if the benefit of a man made inclusion is small it has little reason for being there. But I suppose this needs to be mentioned in context of a site that does not start off void of character and requires significant earth movement to build the courses foundation. Often times the inclusion of detrimental man made features stand out in stark contrast to their surroundings and draw unwarranted attention.

[Sean_A]

Ben

I think the first sand free course I played was Kington and I didn't realize it was sand-free until someone mentioned it in the house.  I have since played many more sand free courses and none touch Kington for quality or architectural merit, and that includes the highly touted Royal Ashdown Forest.  BUT, I couldn't say Kington is world class or truly great - its just the best I know of and I seek the buggers out.  I think some well placed bunkers, even it is a dozen, will be a boon for any design. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

what does world class mean. I suspect for many they confuse championship for world class assuming a course must be capable of holding a big event to qualify. I do not see why shorter courses or even dare I say 9 holers cannot be world class. I would say that there are several moorland courses that are not on sand and are world class though none of those without bunkers that I have played would be in that league.

Jon

[Jud_T]

SPRING VALLEY

I'm starting to sound like a drunken dentist...

[Sean_A]

Jon

I agree with you.  For better or worse I think of world class as shoe in top 100.  I don't know what that number is, maybe 30-50 courses?  Great is a step below for me and I really don't have any idea how many there are.  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()