News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2016, 05:26:38 PM »

Whilst they sometimes may be a different feature, a top shot bunker is to me just another forced carry, and forced carries are something I'm not keen on, nor are others as I recall from this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60145.0.html
 
So let's vote on features and dumb down as much architecture as you can as you cater to the lowest common denominator



This begs the question....if a feature is not strategic, can removing it really dumb down a course strategically speaking?


Jeff,

If golfers are hitting into it, it must have strategic value.

Ditto those golfers who are elated when they carry it.

John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2016, 05:51:46 PM »
"Top Shot" bunkers, or "Foreground" bunkers as I like to call them, are a particularly valuable design tool I like to use.
Apart from adding spice for the less longer hitters, particularly the elderly ladies, they also provide a striking feature relatively close to the eye.

 
In reply to Jeff, I once had a course redo job and one of the specifics from the ladies section was exactly that
"please give us some interesting hazards to play round".

 
"Foreground" bunkers are open to critic, particularly from maintenance staff and long hitters, who argue the bunkers serve no purpose.
Maybe for them, but for others it can be a welcome highlight.

 
However as a feature which can provide an aesthetic enhancement to what is often just a straight ahead monotonous open area of grass fairway for 250 yards, they are of great value. Noone likes a boring course, and even if the players are not consciously aware of the value of "Foreground" bunkers, I believe subliminally the subconcious of unaware golfers registers them as "variety".

 
The bunker doesn't necesarily have to be a sand bunker but could also be a grass bunker.

 
"Foreground" bunkers are more than just "eye candy", as they can also provide mystery by hiding parts of the fairway beyond the feature, and can heighten the perspective in the line of play, and on semi blind rises help indicate the direction of play.

 
 
I've yet to find one I didn't like.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2016, 07:51:05 PM »
Theres no such thing as a landing zone.
Follow a group of mid-high handicappers or even low hdcpers
playing different tees, and youll see every part of the course is in play.
I hate loads of bunkers anyway but there are no bad places for them, just need to less of them.
A bunker 100  yards off the tee is a thrill for one and an aiming point for another.
Architecture got so formulaic for awhile.
Strategic bunkering can also be formulaic and may only affect strategy for a few or others in unintended ways.
Lets shape less, mow less tight, and let the terrain be the hazard/reward, and sprinkle in bunkers that matter when they fit the land. (to all classes of players over the course of 18 holes)
played a wonderful lay of the land  course.Every bunker looked forced and useless at a place where there's not a nickel to spare.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 08:01:36 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2016, 09:34:41 PM »

Whilst they sometimes may be a different feature, a top shot bunker is to me just another forced carry, and forced carries are something I'm not keen on, nor are others as I recall from this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60145.0.html
 
So let's vote on features and dumb down as much architecture as you can as you cater to the lowest common denominator



This begs the question....if a feature is not strategic, can removing it really dumb down a course strategically speaking?


Jeff,

If golfers are hitting into it, it must have strategic value.

Ditto those golfers who are elated when they carry it.

Yes, for those who strategically plan to top the tee shot, and then execute perfectly.......

Now, I am not against the occasional fore bunker if it serves a few different purposes well, but its just not a feature most would invest heavily in.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2016, 06:52:25 AM »

Whilst they sometimes may be a different feature, a top shot bunker is to me just another forced carry, and forced carries are something I'm not keen on, nor are others as I recall from this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60145.0.html
 
So let's vote on features and dumb down as much architecture as you can as you cater to the lowest common denominator



This begs the question....if a feature is not strategic, can removing it really dumb down a course strategically speaking?


Jeff,

If golfers are hitting into it, it must have strategic value.

Ditto those golfers who are elated when they carry it.

Yes, for those who strategically plan to top the tee shot, and then execute perfectly.......

Now, I am not against the occasional fore bunker if it serves a few different purposes well, but its just not a feature most would invest heavily in.


Jeff


The best investment for bunkers is time....more thoughtful time spent on a scheme should result in less sand. I agree that a course shouldn't be loaded with fore bunkers (a better name than top shot), but with few exceptions, a course shouldn't be loaded with any type of bunker....now should it?  If random bunkering has any legitimacy, than fore bunkers should be part of the scheme. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2016, 09:16:13 AM »
Sean,

Hmm, I bet most of the architects on here would say we invest plenty of time on bunker placement! 

For a lot of reasons - cost, design theory, aesthetics (courses like Purgatory are neat, but were unique.....with the big money of the last 20 years, too many are over bunkered and thus less unique.......) etc. we do try to keep bunkering to the absolute minimum needed.  Of course, limited, or absolute minimum are subjective and subject to debate.

I guess I do represent the Owner POV in my posts.  I rarely get the freedom of a well funded Owner, willing to do anything. Most would say don't build a bunker that purposely catches bad shots of poor players, and further adds to maintenance and slows down the slowest players, so it is always a struggle to get those kinds of bunkers in there.  That is balanced by the fact that the poor golfers pay the same greens fees, and feel they deserve to hit in a few bunkers, too!  And actually, what they deserve is to just barely miss a few bunkers.  Green bunkers affect everyone, so those rarely get cut.

I have always worked on the premise that a bunker ought to serve multiple functions to be cost justified, including strategy, punishment, safety bunkers, save bunkers, target/aiming bunkers, and of course good looks.  But, I and most definitely figure scattering bunkers around in low play areas mostly for looks, and somewhat to challenge poor players do remain a low priority investment.

You say there is no landing zone, and yes, people do miss everywhere.  I have seen plots of where balls land, and there is a pattern, even if up to 23% of tee shots do get topped and go less than 100 yards.  By the top shot bunker theory, should we have bunkers 70 yards off line as well as 100 yards off the tee? Or do we plan around challenging and suggesting good shots over punishing bad ones?

I have written this before, but so many bunkers get removed for seeing too little play or seeing too much, at least in someone's opinion (like a bunker front right of a green at a club where the greens chair (or his wife) tends to hit weak fades.....)  Determining just what the "right" amount of action a bunker gets is an unsolved mystery a few hundred years into the profession of golf course design, I guess.

I have also written this before, but it is much cheaper to adjust multiple tees than build bunkers all over the place, since you need to build a certain amount of tee space anyway.   Some artful combo of both is usually the order of the day. 

Cheers.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2016, 11:21:58 AM »
Mr McBride,


I was involved with the restoration of the bunkers at The Valley Club and if you are talking about the 15th hole, please note that the fairway was also expanded way to the left of the bunkers that I think are in question.


Plenty of room to navigate the hazards, as Robert Hunter sometimes called them.  Mr Hunter served as a design associate of Mackenzie at The Valley Club.


" One of the objects in placing hazards is to give the players as much pleasurable excitement as possible.  Hazards should be placed with an object and none should be made which has not some influence on the line of play to the hole"


                                                                                                             Excerpts from The Links, by Robert Hunter


Most recently I restored two courses in Chicago, a C.H.Alison course in Highland Park Il and the Glen View Club in Golf Il, both had a few obstacles in the direct line of play from the tee, I am not opposed to them, I think they add excitment to the game but not without some trepidation. 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 02:45:33 PM by JC Urbina »

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2016, 11:30:16 AM »
Tim


So called top shot bunkers (a really poor name) can give great pleasure to many people.  Since when did we ever start to think that a short hitting hack doesn't want the thrill of hitting over/around a bunker from the tee?


Ciao


Contender for post of the year alongside Robin Hiseman's post on drainage. Similar to length off the tee, us wayward guys like something to aim at as well. Golf is and should be a challenge, and the GCA's job should be to make that a pleasureable challenge, not omit the challenge altogether. IMHO of course.


Niall

Peter Pallotta

Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2016, 11:56:40 AM »
Golf was not only a much harder game in the 1920s, I think it was also much less democratic. Sure, they'd let the average golfer join up and play, but he'd better be comfortable shooting 110 on a regular basis, and not expect (with elements such as top shot bunkers) that allowances would be made for his ineptitude.
Peter

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2016, 12:46:21 PM »
Mr McBride,


I was involved with the restoration of the bunkers at The Valley Club and if you are talking about the 15th hole, please note that the fairway was also expanded way to the left of the bunkers that I think are in question.


Plenty of room to navigate the hazards, as Robert Hunter someitmes called them.  Mr Hunter served as a design associate of Mackenzie at The Valley Club.


" One of the objects in placing hazards is to give the players as much pleasurable excitement as possible.  Hazards should be placed with an object and none should be made which has not some influence on the line of play to the hole"


                                                                                                             Excerpts from The Links, by Robert Hunter



Jim, I am only reporting actual on the scene comments from ladies at the Valley Club while in my company!   The other than 15 is on number 12.   I think their issue is that the bunkers are on the line where they always drove. I'm sure they have figured out that they can play around both those bunkers. 


Thanks,
Bill

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2016, 02:53:10 PM »
Bill,


If I may use a line from one of my inspirations  C. B.  Macdonald.


" The only thing I do now is to endeavor to make hazards as natural as possible.  I try not to make the course any harder, but to make it more interesting"








Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2016, 02:56:09 PM »
Bill,


If I may use a line from one of my inspirations  C. B.  Macdonald.


" The only thing I do now is to endeavor to make hazards as natural as possible.  I try not to make the course any harder, but to make it more interesting"

Agree 100%. I hope you didn't take my comment as criticism, I love seeing those bunkers restored.  The ladies aren't so sure!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top Shot Bunkers
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2016, 07:24:47 PM »
Golf was not only a much harder game in the 1920s, I think it was also much less democratic. Sure, they'd let the average golfer join up and play, but he'd better be comfortable shooting 110 on a regular basis, and not expect (with elements such as top shot bunkers) that allowances would be made for his ineptitude.
Peter

Pietro

Funny you should say that.  I play with two guys who are off way off the charts handicap wise and neither ever makes excuses about the course being this, that or the other.  They fully accept that any shortcoming is their fault and not the archie's. 

I also think (perhaps wrongly) that a great many guys back in the day would never have dreamed of working on their game or practicing.  I think this concept is a fairly modern one with the coming of trophies and medals for golfers at all levels (part of the everybody is a winner mentality) so hackers today may actually take pride in winning something when they actually played like shit compared to proper golfers.  I must admit that I have never quite grasped the concept of knowing you are terrible and somehow burying that reality to bother practicing to win something if you could only shoot 82.  The illusion carried to such a degree that these guys will spend a ton on dough to gain that upper technological hand to achieve this dream even at the cost of damaging the game as a whole.  Its quite something to see golfers cheerfully and ignorantly devour the game they love for the sake of insignificant trophies.


Ciao
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 07:28:52 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Peter Pallotta

Re: Top Shot Bunkers New
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2016, 08:01:24 PM »
Sean: I know a couple of those fellows, and indeed - having taken up the game in my mid 30s - I myself was one of them for quite a while. It was embarrassing to play so poorly, but it was even more embarrassing -- as a grown man -- to blame anyone or anything else, including the golf course, for my troubles.

I think that, while with each passing day we get more and more facts and information and co-temporary articles about the golden age and its courses and its architects, what we lack -- and it becomes relevant in discussions like this about top shot bunkers -- is a good understanding of how the "average golfer" back then actually experienced the game, i.e. the scores he routinely shot, what he felt about those (undoubtedly high) scores, and how he reacted to/what he blamed for his predicament, if anything. 

The question is complicated, I think -- for besides simply not having a lot of information in this regard, the comparison is not apple-to-apples, i.e. until the caddies and sons of the working class (e.g. Hagen or Vardon) took up golf as professionals, golf was and would remain for quite a while longer a "gentlemen's game" (in the proper sense of that term) - the young Oxford men there, the Main Line types over here. They certainly weren't your average blokes then,  and that's not the class that, in the main, comprises the "average golfer" today.

All of which to say: I don't know what living breathing golfers back then actually thought and felt about a feature like a top shot bunker; but I'm not so sure that anyone else today does either.

Peter   
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 08:04:32 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back