[Mark_Fine]

Was Stanley Thompson the culprit or just one of several architects that helped catalyze the use by future architects of excess bunkering?  Sometimes less is more and courses can be over designed with too many superfluous features which only add to maintenance costs and do little to enhance strategy and/or add to the enjoyment of a round.  Thoughts?

[Adam Clayman]

Having listened to Mr. Cooper at Jasper Park talk about Thompson's work there, he added bunkers over the years. My impression was that he was being heavily influenced by the good doctor in this regard. As I said, it's only my inference. Mostly from the dates and results.

[Mark Saltzman]

Was Thompson really big on excess bunkering? I don't think so but am open to be convinced otherwise.

[Mike Bowen]

In defence of the ODG archies, bunkers weren't maintained to the standard they are today and therefore maintenance costs wouldn't of been driven up.  They might of even gone down.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

I am not so sure that bunkers were ever a cheap option where there wasn't sand on site. Certainly many of the pre 20's courses had few bunkers and after the 30's crash many were filled in to save money. Indeed, many courses spend the first few years filling in bunkers that are considered one too many.

I agree totally with Mark Fine that many bunkers are superfluous and could and should be cut out. Having said that bunker style was one of the ways that a GCA can set a trademark. Take Colt, Mackenzie and Braid who's bunkering are very distinctive from each other in style of presentation and more importantly but often overlooked in placement.

Jon

[Adam Clayman]

Without a significant move, by the protectors of the game, I suspect superfluous bunkering will become much more commonplace, as the rising costs to maintain more turf, due to inaction on their statements of principle, continues.

Avoiding being accused of superfluous is another good reason to only build on sand. It just fits. Think Streamsong.

[Tom_Doak]

Avoiding being accused of superfluous is another good reason to only build on sand. It just fits. Think Streamsong.

I just got back from the opening of our course in St Emilion, France, which is built on clay.  36 bunkers for 18 holes there.  Streamsong, with open sand everywhere, is another story entirely.   If you didn't leave open sand you'd have to irrigate more ground.

Who exactly are the protectors of the game, by the way?

[Norbert P]

 
Walter Travis certainly had an affinity for bunkering.

Hollywood

[Ed Homsey]

Thanks for posting that Hollywood early aerial, Norbert.  Travis did his work there in 1917.  As early as 1901, Travis argued for increasing the number of bunkers in order to, in his opinion, improve the level of play.  In his 1902 Golf article, titled "Hazards"  he opened the article with the statement It is not impossible to conceive of a course being laid out wholly and entirely free from bunkers and hazards of any sort or description, and yet furnishing good golf...".  But, later, in the same article he stated, "A really good course, before it can be unprejudicially pronounced as such, must abound in hazards---and, good courses develop good players."
I think he was a man of his words at Hollywood Golf Club.

Ed Homsey
www.TravisSociety.com

[Mark_Fine]

Ed,
I am all for hazards on golf courses (golf is not golf without them).  In fact, I know a good book about them if you want to read more 😉.  I just think there are times where less is more and sometimes courses get over designed and holes have too much going on (some of it superfluous).  Thompson did some amazing golf courses and I am a fan but he also might have gone overboard at times with bunkers.

[Adam Clayman]

Who exactly are the protectors of the game, by the way?

Exactly.

Their typical pad of paper arrived in the mail last week. On it the words " Inspiring the next generation of players, champions and fans" was printed. I turned to my bride, who is a new golfer (almost) if she felt inspired.  She deadpanned it perfectly.

[Joe Hancock]

trying to work through " too many superfluous..."

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe I should define "superfluous" as I see it  although like most everything in golf course architecture, definitions are very subjective.   

Bunkers that are "out of play" and only impact/further penalize an already very poor shot, bunkers that simply add to maintenance costs and upkeep and do little to enhance aesthetics, inspire play or dictate strategy, and extra bunkers that are added where less would work as well if not better than more.  Eye candy can be fine and very appropriate but even eye candy can be over done and become monotonous. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()