Should bunkers be close to ditches?

[Thomas Dai]

Reading a comment in Sean's current Lundin Links thread got me pondering about the closeness of bunkers and ditches.


Oftentimes I have seen a bunker immediately adjacent to a ditch. Why? Just miss the ditch you go in the bunker. Just miss the bunker you go in the ditch. Seems like a double-dip penalty and extra maintenance. One or the other would be okay, but why have both?


Is it appropriate to have a bunker immediately adjacent to a ditch (or vice versa)?


Here is the the example that got me pondering and another example follows -




Thoughts.


atb

[Niall C]

Why wouldn't you ?


Niall

[Sean_A]

The reasons why I don't like bunkers/waste areas near water:

1. It usually looks dreadful and messy as is the case with Lundin.  Reminds me of the ton of street signs the English love to erect...usually just causes visual disonance. 

2. Often times, bunkers prevent balls from going into the water...I don't see the point of that. 

3. The concept is nearly the same with multiple bunkers...why use two when one will do....why use four when two will do?

Once in a blue moon an archie pulls of a beach look next to water which may or may not be a bunker, but I don't recall ever seeing a proper bunker next to water which looked good and served a well thought out purpose.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


All good reasons but for example what about the 18th at Carnoustie with the burn in front of the green and bunkers left and right of the green ? Do you not think both serve different purposes ?


Niall

[Sean_A]

If it were me I would design the green to take better advantage of the burn so bunkers aren't necessary.


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

A ditch is not a burn though. The assumption must be that the ditch is there more for a practical reason than a strategical one. As such it must remain and should the designer feel it necessary to add a bunker in the same fashion as two bunkers not one then why not. I do agree with Sean however, it rarely looks good and I would have thought should be avoided.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

All good reasons but for example what about the 18th at Carnoustie with the burn in front of the green and bunkers left and right of the green ? Do you not think both serve different purposes ?
Niall

I would suggest this is not an appropriate example given that the front bunkers at the 18th green at Carnoustie's Championship course are not immediately adjacent to the burn.


'Immediately adjacent' is pretty much key to me, which is why I used these exact words in my OP and is why I included a second photograph, which shows a bunker within 2-3 ft of a ditch, closer even than the bunker-burn/ditch relationship in the first photo, the photo that inspired this thread.


Atb

[Niall C]

Atb


I can't recall which hole it is on Moray Old but there is a hole which is a long par 4 dog legged slightly to the right with a burn/drainage channel about 20 yards short of the green and a bunker on the right half of the fairway immediately in front of the ditch. It's about as adjacent to the water as any of the two examples you posted (mind you I suspect my example of the 18th Carnoustie is as well  ) and IMO works well as it breaks up the view of the ditch which in fairness looks like a piece of engineering rather than a natural water course. In that respect it serves a purpose. The Carnoustie bunkers also serve a purpose as flanking hazards dictating or at least suggesting angle of approach while the burn requires carry, so again two different functions.


To my mind both examples work well. Sean has provided examples where it might not work which I accept but unless I read you wrong you seemed to be suggesting that in principle it was wrong which I don't agree with.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Niall,


The greenside bunkers at Carnoustie's 18th are definitely further from the water than the fairway bunker in my second photo and from some satmapping I believe one, if not both, of those at Carnoustie are further away than the one in the Lundin photo. I agree that as flanking bunkers the ones on the 18th at Carnoutie serve a different purpose.


Is this the hole you mean at Moray? - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.7202085,-3.3228654,19z/data=!3m1!1e3 - if so, I'm not keen on the bunker positioning, even more so as there's another bunker I guess about 40 yds short of it on the same line into the green. Out of interest, from a players eye view does the height of the lip of the bunker 40yds short of the burn/ditch mask or hide the view of the bunker immediately adjacent to the burn/ditch?


Atb

[Sean_A]

Niall


Like trees, bunkers should be justified and justifiable.  If the same reason to justify a bunker is used too often then the justification needs justifying     I don't see the point in sticking a bunker adjacent to water unless the archie has an aesthetic reason (hard to believe a good playability design reason could be invented) and has the skills to pull it off.  Sure, there may be exceptions, but yes, my general rule is that I am not in favour of this sort of indifferent design. 


Ciao

[Jason Topp]

Thomas - in your second picture the bunkers seem to make the creek more visible to the player.  I could see that effect as positive or negative depending on one's philosophy.

[Mike Hendren]

Assuming a ditch and ravine are cousins, Mackenzie thought so based upon Pasatiempo. 

Mike

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas - in your second picture the bunkers seem to make the creek more visible to the player.  I could see that effect as positive or negative depending on one's philosophy.

The tee is actually quite raised so the ditch is very visible. I dislike this feature/bunker. I'd like to either open up a further length of the ditch or keep/reshape the second bunker on the right but fill in the first one. The first bunker is so close to the ditch that you can't even drive a mower between them and it's a pretty tight fit to even take a pull-trolley through the gap. I believe MacKenzie did this one too Mike, although in his day it would have been rare for tee shots to have got anywhere near it, no longer though.
Atb

[Niall C]

atb


That's the hole. As to whether the first bunker hides the second bunker I imagine it would do on a certain line but I'd need to go back for a look to remind myself. It's a cracking hole and while I don't think the bunker adds a huge amount it certainly doesn't detract in my opinion.


Sean


"If the same reason to justify a bunker is used too often then the justification needs justifying" - surely if the reason is valid it will continue to be valid, no ? If it's a question of lack of variety and over use, then I don't think that is a charge you could lay against having bunkers next to ditches/burns etc.

Niall

[Don Mahaffey]

Other than the obvious eye candy use, I believe most of the time when bunkers are immediately adjacent to a more penal hazard it is to keep the player in the game vs adding more hazard.
Convex containment

[Ally Mcintosh]

The 11th hole at Moray Old is the one you are talking about. Very good hole because of the ditch. And excellently bunkered course, although I can't recall the bunker in question.

There are two reasons to place a bunker or bunkers next to a ditch:

1. Aesthetic scale and balance
2. As a saving hazard

Despite the fact that positioning of hazards is key to any great golf course, No.1 above is a consideration that all architects place a high emphasis on, some to the exclusion of all else.

Generally speaking, I agree that the ditch / bunker double hazard is to be avoided if possible though.

I don't see Carnoustie 18th as an example, primarily because the bunkers are quite clearly connected to the green complex rather than the burn.

[Sean_A]

Ally


I am interested in seeing a photo ofa bunker next to a ditch which adds to aesthetic scale and balance. 


I can imagine some really wildy shaped large bunkers next to ditches, but I still wonder what purpose they would serve because I don't get the saving bunker concept for ditches/burns/creeks.  Where I do see the idea working is on larger bodies of water or rivers, but that would really be purely for aesthetics.  I have seen a photo of one course where this was done very well, can't remember which course or who did it, but I want to say Pete Dye.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

..... I don't get the saving bunker concept for ditches/burns/creeks.

Me too. Happy to be educated though!


For a novice or lessor player a great put-off in the game would successfully blasting out of bunker and going into an immedialtely adjacent ditch.


For aesthetics (ie glossy publicity photos) in some areas of the world I can sort of-ish see some reasoning maybe.


I can see reasoning for safety reasons, for example, some nasty critter coming out of the water or swamp ought to be easier for a player/maintenance worker to see against a bright white background than against varied shades of green.


Some interesting rules debates can occur about drops etc when bunkers (hazards) and ditches/ponds (also hazards) are in close proximity.


Atb