Is architectural talent judged by bunker design?

[Mike_Young]

I am convinced now more than ever that the average modern golfer defines an architects abilities by a complicated bunker edge and noticeable green contours.  This would have left a few of the ODG's out in the rain...
A couple of the modern sigs load their projects up with bunkers but pride themselves in the aesthetics while making sure they are placed so as not to interfere with the average golfer's game. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - one of the reasons I left tv writing years ago is because I grew discouraged by my inability to hold my own in discussions/arguments with the producers who had hired me and who wanted to ensure above all else that the audience "got it", i.e. who wanted this audience, in my opinion, to be spoon-fed all the ideas and information in such a direct, uncomplicated and obvious way that there'd be absolutely zero risk they'd ever be confused or left thinking/wondering even for a split second or ever be troubled/challenged by the ideas and information we provided. So, as I say, I grew discouraged that I couldn't convince them otherwise, and also unhappy that I couldn't find a way to do what I thought was good writing/good work while at the same time satisfying their, for me, overly-populists tastes. (Then, and still now, I have the gnawing feeling that if I was just a little more talented I might've found a way.) But as Terry L notes, no one has ever gone broke under-estimating the intelligence of the people -- and in the end, I'm no longer writing professionally and those producers meanwhile are still making a lot of money making the kind of product they believe the audience wants (and I guess I'd have to admit that they are right). You no doubt can see the analogy
Peter

[Ally Mcintosh]

Actually Mike, I think you're talking about the average golfer with an inkling of design interest / knowledge. They gravitate to admiring bunker edges and heavily contoured greens because they are the most easily identifiable features of a design.

I come across more average golfers in Ireland without that design interest who much prefer simple bunker edges and flat greens.

Big generalisations of course. Though I do agree with you. The aesthetics of a design trump all other aspects in most viewers eyes.

[Thomas Dai]

Terrain/soil permitting, is there more skill in creating a green (hole even) that has no bunkers or maybe just say one or two than a hole that has loads of them? Just wondering.
Atb

[Carl Rogers]

Flynn seems to be held in high opinion, but that same high opinion does not think he was a great creator of bunkers.
At the Women's Open telecast at Lancaster, does anyone remember the bunkering?
I have only played the Cascades twice... it is the routing, balance and subtlety of green complexes of the course that are the most memorable.

[Paul Gray]

Absolutely agree. And it's often the golfers at supposedly better clubs who are most guilty. If the conversation at such courses gravitates above the introduction of more ponds, trees and general greenery, the next port of call, because it's the most easily observed and most easily understood, is bunker work. Many modern archies have seemingly figured this out and declared themselves to be appreciative of minimalist trends because they know how to make a frilly edged bunker, a skill which says nothing about course design.

[Phil McDade]

Terrain/soil permitting, is there more skill in creating a green (hole even) that has no bunkers or maybe just say one or two than a hole that has loads of them? Just wondering.
Atb

Yes; and it's very much a reflection of the penal school of architecture.

[Terry Lavin]

Eye candy bunkers have seduced many a minimalist/hobbyist observer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

By some, sure.  I think it is a clear "like it or not" style thingy.

The problem with evaluation of other aspects is golfers can't really judge what other options may have been available, and what features may have been passed up.  Or at least, judge the overall value of passing up, say a view, because using that site for a tee made the rest of the routing less desirable.

[Paul Gray]

Eye candy bunkers have seduced many a minimalist/hobbyist observer.

Perfectly put.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:


I have more than once expressed frustration about the same issue here on Golf Club Atlas ... that people go gaga over pictures of bunkers, and can't understand good strategy unless it involves a lot of bunkers outlining the various routes.


However, I also remember the state of golf architecture thirty years ago, when Mr. Dye built his long, flat bunkers with their steep grass banks everywhere he went, and Jack Nicklaus and Arthur Hills and so many others followed suit.  Do you really think that era of design was better than today's?


When I took Gil Hanse to California in 1990 to go and see the bunkers at SFGC and Cypress Point and LACC and Riviera so that we could try to build something similar at Black Forest, I was just trying to go in a different direction.  I had no idea how much impact the trip would have [in more ways than one!].

[Sean_A]

There is nothing wrong with attractive bunkers, but I do think that in the past some folks have placed too much emphasis and look and quantity rather than placement and use of sand as one of many types features.  I think this emphasis is now beginning to drift away somewhat. Part of the problem with aesthetic is people pushing the restoration agenda starting at bunker style.  I spose its easy to see an actual difference in the ground and therefore perhaps influence opinion. 


Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Mike:


I have more than once expressed frustration about the same issue here on Golf Club Atlas ... that people go gaga over pictures of bunkers, and can't understand good strategy unless it involves a lot of bunkers outlining the various routes.


However, I also remember the state of golf architecture thirty years ago, when Mr. Dye built his long, flat bunkers with their steep grass banks everywhere he went, and Jack Nicklaus and Arthur Hills and so many others followed suit.  Do you really think that era of design was better than today's?


When I took Gil Hanse to California in 1990 to go and see the bunkers at SFGC and Cypress Point and LACC and Riviera so that we could try to build something similar at Black Forest, I was just trying to go in a different direction.  I had no idea how much impact the trip would have [in more ways than one!].

TD,
Yep...30 years ago...IMHO RTJ built the worst bunkers.  So many were "dozer" bunkers where a D4 would make two circle turns and hollow out the area ( over simplification) and we had a time of just plain bad bunker work.  I still think it takes an excavator to build a good bunker and a wide blade just can't do it in most cases unless it is an extremely large bunker.  The designs of that entire era can be summed up as "wide blade design" whether it be greens or bunkers etc.  At least PD finished many of his with excavators.  I remember using "Moose" to build trackhoe bunkers and it convinced me. 

I think designs today are the best yet [in more ways than one!]    but the golfer/owner/developer does not appreciate subtlety. ( the left side of the 18th green at last weeks tourney that Fowler won is a great example...not sure of course or architect)  Long lateral movements in fairways etc are so often much better than bunkers etc and no one seems to appreciate such.  As for today's bunker, I'm not as concerned with the frill etc as I am the locations, depth and intended strategy.  I do think geographic location should determine the type of bunker to an extent. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

We can't forget that cost control was probably a higher priority then than recently, and may become higher again.  When money flows (in an era, or just at higher end individual clubs)

Most of us had to tune bunkers to the radius of a bunker rake (8-10 feet minimum) and we got those "boobs and butt" bunkers, also a product of how wide a dozer blade was, in most cases.  The idea of using smaller hoes to build was apparently non existent until Dye.

Lastly, as attractive as those modern craggy edge bunkers are, I wonder if time will tell if golfers like them? I have heard of a few complaints at clubs about the unfairness.  I.e., why be punished more for a 10 wide miss in craggy grass and get a great lie (thanks to bunker liners, white sand, etc.) when you miss by 20?

Its all a pendulum.  About all I know is that in ten years time, architects will be building different bunkers, as many focus on the problems of a particular style, and every style has some strengths and weakness, or the next Tom Doak wants just to be different to stand out a bit.......

[Tom_Doak]

  About all I know is that in ten years time, architects will be building different bunkers, as many focus on the problems of a particular style, and every style has some strengths and weakness, or the next Tom Doak wants just to be different to stand out a bit.......

Well I'm waiting, too, Jeff.  It's been 24 years since Black Forest, and 15 since Pacific Dunes made frilly bunkers the "in" thing.  And all too many of my former associates and interns seem to think they'll make their mark by building cooler bunkers than the last guy ... but to be fair, I guess I don't let them route the courses for me. 

[MClutterbuck]

I do think geographic location should determine the type of bunker to an extent.

+1


Geographic, geological, weather, and local golf culture considerations, making them authentic.

[Mike_Young]

  About all I know is that in ten years time, architects will be building different bunkers, as many focus on the problems of a particular style, and every style has some strengths and weakness, or the next Tom Doak wants just to be different to stand out a bit.......

Well I'm waiting, too, Jeff.  It's been 24 years since Black Forest, and 15 since Pacific Dunes made frilly bunkers the "in" thing.  And all too many of my former associates and interns seem to think they'll make their mark by building cooler bunkers than the last guy ... but to be fair, I guess I don't let them route the courses for me. 

TD,
Just to be clear...I'm not talking about bunkers like you have a PD.  Those fit the surroundings and were built with what was there.  I'm talking about some guy taking a normal bunker site and just painting a frilly edge on an otherwise single dimension bunker wall and digging out an edge and then taking sod and placing it down over such an edge or lining those edges with sand bags and sodding over.  If a guy has a site that allows for blow out bunkers etc then by all means go for it...
O and while I'm at it , many participants on this site will let the bunker work win out over the routing in my opinion...and they don't even know they are doing it..

[Ryan Farrow]

Although I just built one of those frilly edge bunkers today, I am indeed tired of them. 


There was a time where I despised grass face bunkers after a summer of flymowing at Oakmont. But after seeing the work of Raynor, Emmet, and Langford & Moreau I have gone full circle and would like to give grass faces some new life just to escape the frilly edges. A well built grass faced bunker can be just as interesting as a "Tom Doak" or C&C bunker, see NGLA.


In fairness, it is tough not to build these guys when working in sand, especially if you are transitioning bunker edges into sand dunes and native vegetation like this:







Mike, to answer your question, I feel like the [/size]average modern golfer defines an architect's[/color][/size] ability by the color of the grass and their scorecard at the end of the day. [/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]The average golf architecture geek is another story. I can understand why people get excited when they see these types of bunkers, but hell when I was in China and saw a great sandy site riddled with figure 8 and circle bunkers I was equally annoyed by a big name trying to copy a "natural" bunker style. [/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]For the most part, we understand what we are getting into when we see the Architects name on the scorecard. The surprise is over for me, but the retail golfer will always be enthralled with the stuff that makes us shake our heads. [/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]All we can do is flood the market with the best golf courses that we can possibly build. I guess the craft beer craze is progress? Who knows, maybe one day the retail golfer will understand the difference between a bunker style that is in vogue and a good course design. We can dream. [/color]

[Mike_Young]

Although I just built one of those frilly edge bunkers today, I am indeed tired of them. 


There was a time where I despised grass face bunkers after a summer of flymowing at Oakmont. But after seeing the work of Raynor, Emmet, and Langford & Moreau I have gone full circle and would like to give grass faces some new life just to escape the frilly edges. A well built grass faced bunker can be just as interesting as a "Tom Doak" or C&C bunker, see NGLA.


In fairness, it is tough not to build these guys when working in sand, especially if you are transitioning bunker edges into sand dunes and native vegetation like this:







Mike, to answer your question, I feel like the average modern golfer defines an architect's ability by the color of the grass and their scorecard at the end of the day.

The average golf architecture geek is another story. I can understand why people get excited when they see these types of bunkers, but hell when I was in China and saw a great sandy site riddled with figure 8 and circle bunkers I was equally annoyed by a big name trying to copy a "natural" bunker style.

For the most part, we understand what we are getting into when we see the Architects name on the scorecard. The surprise is over for me, but the retail golfer will always be enthralled with the stuff that makes us shake our heads.

All we can do is flood the market with the best golf courses that we can possibly build. I guess the craft beer craze is progress? Who knows, maybe one day the retail golfer will understand the difference between a bunker style that is in vogue and a good course design. We can dream.

Ryan, Iagree.

[Jaeger Kovich]

  About all I know is that in ten years time, architects will be building different bunkers, as many focus on the problems of a particular style, and every style has some strengths and weakness, or the next Tom Doak wants just to be different to stand out a bit.......

Well I'm waiting, too, Jeff.  It's been 24 years since Black Forest, and 15 since Pacific Dunes made frilly bunkers the "in" thing.  And all too many of my former associates and interns seem to think they'll make their mark by building cooler bunkers than the last guy ... but to be fair, I guess I don't let them route the courses for me. 

That is not how I think I'll make my mark, but it might be a stepping stone on the way. I just happen to fall backwards into a bunker reno doing routing work (which is hopefully does make a mark!). Its not like we can rebuild them less cool!

How often do courses rebuild greens, or reroute vs do a bunker project seemingly every 10 years in my area? I also think this is a product of most younger guys being better excavator operators, and generally don't have a ton of dozer or green building experience. (As sad as it is now, Simapo was the perfect opportunity)

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know what's more scary; building frilly edged bunkers when it's in vogue, or being a design associate....

[Mike_Young]

I don't know what's more scary; building frilly edged bunkers when it's in vogue, or being a design associate....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Young,
Woke up interested in your quote about RTJ bunkers being not great at times.  In general, I thought he built 4-5 mounds and set the bunker in the lows between them.

Conceptually, was he trying to do something different than Mac, or was it a matter of details?  To me, its the same idea, but perhaps because of the large size of dozers, RTJ came out too symmetrical, whereas each lobe, nose, etc. of a Mac bunker was a slightly different size, angle, and height. In other words, detail, not big idea.

I also recall an article where RTJ and Wilson sniped at each other, which I think one criticized the bunkering of the others.  Seemed much ado about nothing, as they were similar bunkers to my eye.  But,  think Wilson had a bit more flare, again, varying things in the "puzzle piece" more like Mac did to create a more artistic bunker.

Of course, we do have the CBM style, later copied well with a few subtle differences by Langford.  I think he may have captured that style better than Raynor, again, because he took the steep bank style, but added subtle curves, rather than being as geometric as Raynor.

Hard to articulate, but how many basic bunker styles are there, and how many different subtle variations?

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I think RTJ placed bunkers in the "lows" as you describe and also took basic green side slopes and built "mickey mouse ears".  IMHO the limiting factor of these bunkers was the turning radius of a small dozer.
I haven't said I dislike RTJ designs.  I happen to like many of them and feel his bunkers were for the most strategically located or had purpose.  I just think they were not my favorite aesthetically.  And that's the way I sense most of his work....just BIG and not a lot of small detail...
After reading Jim Hanson's book I m more convinced than ever that Dick Wilson got under Jone's skin more than anyone....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree the bunker lobes were set by dozer blade width.  (and to an equal degree, sand pro turning radius) Few thought of building differently back then, although it now seems obvious that smaller machines in bunkers, after the basic hole was dug out, makes a ton of sense.  I recall shapers saying maybe they could push back in to reduce the size of the bunker, which was possible.

I can recall being in the field with Killian and Nugent. After seeing TPC, they considered building small pot bunkers, but shapers told them it couldn't be done.  And, they did consider sand pros.  Those "pots" came out at over 20 foot across, just killing any effect.  They abandoned the experiment quickly.

In any event, my earlier post was a feeble attempt to generate a discussion on bunker design theory, but I doubt this crowd is into it.  I am not even sure the architects here could clearly convey the basic theory guiding their bunker work, but it would be interesting to hear.