Less (bunkers) Is More — or not?

[Forrest Richardson]

Contrast CAN be accomplished with broken ground, sandy waste areas, vegetation, water, roughs and wrecked VW buses piled along fairways. Strike the last one.

But I agree. Sand can look good. However, the challenge is on. I'd like to see more pursuit of appropriate and authentic hazards when possible.

[Bill_McBride]

It's obviously easier to tie artificial bunkers into the existing sandy waste on a desert site.  Two great examples of this technique I was lucky enough to play in January were Apache Stronghold and Talking Stick North.  In both cases a lot of the bunkering was beautifully tied into adjoining, existing sandy waste.  Bunkers carved out of fairways and other all green areas of course did not have this look.  Tom Doak's shapers have done a super job tying in artificial to existing at both Apache Stronghold and Pacific Dunes.  The dunesland at Pacific Dunes isn't exactly the same as the desert waste at either of the other courses mentioned, but the effect is the same.  Great look.  Forrest, I'm looking forward to playing some of your desert courses for what I'm sure will be more of that great stuff.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Paul:  Thanks!

Who do you think has done a great bunker job on a parkland course?  

Oakmont?
SFCC?
Augusta?
 

[TEPaul]

m;

I think Aronimink (a parkland course) has done a great bunkering job recently in their restoration to Ross's original bunker scheme. Tee to green the bunkering plays very strategic now.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Doak,
When you say those on this web site that are goo goo gah gah over bunkers, would it be safe to consider me in that group?

I hope you say yes, because you would be somewhat right and somewhat wrong. There is little doubt amongst all of you that I have a love for sand hazards, but in truth, I don't care for the over use of them. I don't like the term eye candy nor support it either. I subscribe more to the Max Behr theory of bunekr placement. The one where he specifically calls out Sunningdale-Old's Colt creations; a myriad of cross bunkers and the like, literally clogging up the landscape. In that early British Golf Illustrated/Charles Ambrose piece, Max Behr candidly displayed how the hole could remain just as strategic while being much more maintainble by less bunkers/in different places to create the same strategies. But I also think that if given the site was a sand field, that the hazards dictate themselves better to the surrounds then as seperated individual hazards. Say it was a sandy wash of DG. Once again, less bunkers/more of the natural habitat, and it all ties into place.  You know, like Apache Stronghold!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommy- If "eye candy" doesn't describe Clive Clarks use of bunkers at CC of the desert, what term does?

[Forrest Richardson]

Instead of using "Eye Candy" in this instance, how about "Clark Bars"?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
Not sure how many of the bunkers are eye candy, but the acres of petunias sure are!

[A_Clay_Man]

Don- I seem to recall some of those bunkers being nothing more but backdrop. Taking framing to the 3rd dimension. But, I do know I can hit a ball that far offline but usually not from a flat lie.

[Jeff Fortson]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up The Olympic Club (Lake) on this thread.  Here is a golf course with only ONE fairway bunker that happens to be one of the toughest driving courses I have ever played.

The slopes of the hill the course is built on provide all the strategy necessary for the tee shots on all but one of the holes.  I think this is a wonderful example of a place where bunkers or "lighthouse bunkers" are totally unnecessary.

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

Jeff F:

If a golf course possesses "gravity" golf it doesn't need bunkers!

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

Please explain yourself*.

(* In six paragraphs or less!)

[ian]

PTurner - - I can only surmise from your post that you have never in fact played Royal Portrush - as a member I can tell you that there are as many bunkers as any links course in the UK.  For starters the first hole has 4 bunkers, the 2nd hole has 4, the short par-3 third has 2, and so on and so on.  In fact, there are fairway and greenside bunkers on almost every hole!!  I would challenge you to tell me where there is a lack of bunkers.  The only hole that is "bukerless" is calamity, but then again, there are enought distractions and pitfalls with that hole!!

I do admit that there are numerous bunkers on the last two holes, but would not agree that the 18th is "uniteresting".  As a par-5 it was somewhat of a letdown, but as a 460 par-4 with over 12 bunkers dotted up the fairway, you know standing on the tee that the monthly medal is not yours until you hole out!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Look at most current TPC courses to see courses with less bunkers.  There are lots of reasons for it, including the maintenance cost as noted.  I think the 90's will be remembered for many design excesses, bunkering quantity included.  As we return to a more normal economy (i.e. crappy for discretionary income activities) cost will become even more important in golf.  We will repeat the trend similar to the sixties and early seventies where renovations are done with an eye to the, shall we say, practical.....

The other reason is that, as we have discussed, bunkers are almost irrelevant to tournament set up, so why use them, except to carry on the golf tradition?  Add in that they are penal to the everyday player, and help the best players, and its a feature that should be reduced from a philosophical perspective in modern design.

They sure do look good, though, if properly done!  That's why I keep a few of them around.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

17th @ Winged Foot East?