Strategy of additional bunkers

[Joe Hancock]

In doing some reading, I pondered the question of whether all bunkers, by their very nature, must ADD strategy to a hole. I think the answer is no, but part of that answer is knowing the value of balance, variety and restraint within the context of location and terrain. But I'd like to think about it further, with everyone's help.


I have recently completed an improvement plan for Harbor Point Golf Club, in Harbor Springs, MI. The second hole is a short 4 with a domed, 1800 sq. ft. green. There currently are two greenside bunkers, front left and front right. In my plan, I have recommended removal of both bunkers, to be replaced with fairway height grass surrounding the green. I think the result will be less confidence by the better player, and more enjoyment of the lesser player. Is that a function of strategy? And, is the removal of said bunkers increasing the strategy, or decreasing it, or changing it but in a somewhat neutral manner?


Do you have any examples of an existing hole that became more (or less) strategic with bunkers being added?

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Sometimes less is more and sometimes no bunkers makes absolute sense.  As long as there is enough contour and falloffs around the green, your idea might be ideal and add interest and strategy to all levels of golfers.
Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - I think this an excellent question. Some random thoughts/responses.

1. Design strategies are experienced throughout the round as a golfer's choices; and a golfer's thrill and engagement on any given golf hole is directly related to the real and/or perceived consequences of any particular choice. So, yes, I do think that removing bunkers does alters the strategic function, since both the average golfer and good one alike perceive more dire consequences with green-side bunkers and less dire consequences without them -- and thus experience more strategy with the former than with the latter.  But, on the other hand:

2. Most golfers (and all good designers) recognize that, in general, bunkers are like a regressive tax, i.e. they take away relatively more from those with less to give while taking relatively less away from those who can most afford to give. The trouble is that, in trying to make bunkers less regressive architects often make them little more than eye candy (even though architects often manage to disguise the fact). There's a golf hole I play where the architect has paid homage to the Downs' Three Sisters.  He has three bunkers benched into a rising fairway, on the ideal line. It was a cool feature that first time I played it, until I realized that these 3 sisters were only about 160 yards off the tee; I flew over them so easily that I actually became annoyed, i.e. the homage was no more than that, as it had no strategic function and no impact on play; the bunkers 'guard' the ideal line not at all. 

3. The bunkers you plan to remove are not exactly in the same category as those I've just described, but I take it they function/don't function in something of the same way, i.e. the better gofer has no problem at all with them, while for the less-than-average golfer than can mean a heap of trouble. Given this, I can see your rationale and point of view, and could say: yes, remove them, as they do not have/serve a meaningfully strategic function -- or least, no such function that fairway height grassing would not easily replicate for the better golfer.

4. In short, I can see both sides of the argument re these green-side bunkers -- which in turn strongly suggests to me that there is no single and/or right answer; there is only your (I mean, Joe H's) particular ethos and philosophy and style and talent and common sense and practical-mindedness (when it comes, for example, reducing ongoing maintenance costs). And I think that this defense/rationale for your improvement plan, i.e. your own skill and experience, is the best -- and in truth, the only real as opposed to rhetorical -- argument for the validity of what you are proposing.

5. After all, it is you they've hired and have come to trust, not some other architect and certainly not some design theory.   

Peter

[JESII]

Joe - hope your well!


It's funny to me that you label these bunkers as "additional".


Anyway, does the green ask for a drive to one side or the other, of the fairway?

[Joe Hancock]

Thanks for the responses thus far, but allow me to back-pedal a moment; I'm not looking for advise on the 2nd hole at HPGC, nor did I meant to have it be the only hole of discussion. I merely wanted to start the discussion with one of my own experiences. So, with that (and Peter, feel free to clarify my thoughts for me, because I'm often struggling to choose the right words to say what I mean) I'll try it another way:


I was reading about bunkers being added to improve strategy, where, presumably, none existed previously. So I wondered if it was possible to add bunkers without it ADDING to startegy...or, similarly, if there were holes where the startegy actually becomes more diverse by removing bunkers....do more bunkers always mean more strategy???


Hope everyone is appropriately confused now....

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:  What a good question.  You've asked something that's bothered me for years ... the difference between strategy and "strategy."


I've always had a problem with the separation of golf course design into the "penal" v "strategic" schools, because it's obvious from a marketing standpoint that everyone would claim to be "strategic" no matter what they are building.  One example of this is when an architect keeps adding bunkers to force the golfer to make "strategic" choices ... when what he is really doing is adding more potential penalties for the golfer to avoid.


There was a lot of that at Sebonack.  My crew would rough in a hole, and Mr. Nicklaus would come in and many times add extra bunkers to add to the strategy:  it seemed as though he didn't think you could have strategy without a hazard.  On the ninth hole, a short par-5 up the hill to the clubhouse, I had left a big slope in the landing area, where if you tried to carry up the hill and fell short, you'd have an awkward stance to try and blast your second shot toward the green ... I thought it was a good, subtle strategy.  Jack turned it into a bunker.  And then up at the green, which is semi-blind from certain points of approach, we had a deep bunker at the right front, but I'd left the left side wide open so you could aim away from the trouble and try to sneak one onto the green; so Jack added a bunker left front, to add strategy to the approach shot.


TRUE strategy is about more than just avoiding a bunker ... it requires a tension between two things, so that it matters on which side one avoids the first.  The tension could be as simple as a better angle into the tilt of the green, or a clear line past another hazard on the next shot.


In your example, the bunkers at right front and left front of the green add no discernible strategy to the hole ... whether they are there or not, nearly all golfers are going to aim at the same spot, the middle of the green.  Removing one of the two would probably ADD strategy, assuming that missing to one side would then mean a more difficult recovery than missing to the other side ... because a golfer, understanding the situation, would feel a tension between aiming for the middle of the green and flirting with the bunker, or aiming a bit more to the safe side to take the bunker out of play.  [You could also have a hole where the bunker shot was actually easier than missing the green to the "unguarded" side because of the slope of the green.]


Your idea to take out both bunkers does not increase or decrease strategy, in my opinion, you are just substituting different recovery values around the green.  But there is nothing wrong with that, a few times per round at least.  If it were one of my courses, the green itself would have just enough going on that it mattered where you miss, and further hazards would be redundant ... perhaps that is not true for Harbor Point, but even so, you're not decreasing the strategy of what's already there.


The real problem is that people think strategy = good, and when you combine that with the American attitude that more = better, you wind up with courses offering up false strategies that do little more than penalize the weaker player.  That's not to say you should never add hazards that aren't strategic; testing the golfer to hit between two bits of trouble is fair game, and most of the great courses include a fair number of such tests.  Indeed, it would be a great exercise to go around one great course we all know well and see how many of its bunkers truly serve a strategic purpose, as opposed to a "strategic" one.

[mike_malone]

Joe,


 Historical research shows that the uphill 15 at Rolling Green did not have bunkers at the green on the left side. If these were removed the bunkers that are shorter , about 70 yards, would go from penal to strategic. This is because you would then " take on" the bunkers in an effort to bounce the shot on the green rather than " avoid" them.

[Pete Lavallee]

I've struggled to think of a course that has added bunkers here in SD over the last 26 years. Coronado has added 4 fairway bunkers on the back 9 which greatly increased strategy for the longer hitter. Other than rejiggering the bunkering during a redesign I can't think of a single added green side bunker. Frankly I can't think of a green side bunker that's been removed either, purely for the purpose of changing the strategy.


I originally disagreed with Peter, my first impression was that green side bunkers do matter even for better players. But a quick check of the PGA Tour stas show otherwise; there seems to be little difference in their up and down and sand save percentages. Ricky Fowler is leading at 80% in both categories, so he won't care if Joe removes the bunkers or not!


However for the recreational player there is a perceived difference to me, even 0-5 handicap players seem to have a lower chance of getting up and down from green side bunkers than off short grass. Again that probably changes when the green is surrounded by thick rough.

[Sean_A]

Joe

I don't think its often good to think in terms of a weaker/stronger player dichotomy or strategic VS penal.  To me, the #1 object of golf design (unless one is given a specific mandate) is to create balanced variety.  If you think the course in question has too many left/right green bunker configurations then do something different which creates more variety...forget about altering strategy....think about 18 holes.  The biggest problem with bunkering is once a certain number is hit...probably about 50-60ish then it is difficult not to repeat patterns, similarities or reasoned justifications when going over that number.  Keeping in mind that of well placed (imo anyway) bunkering only 30-40% will be in play for any given golfer on any given day then the odds of creating something varied and balanced go up with considerably less than 100 bunkers deployed.  The question then becomes how good is the archie at getting the best out of the land and creating the non-bunker hand made features.   

Ciao 

[Mark_Fine]

I agree with what Sean said about “balanced variety” but disagree about not worrying about stronger or weaker golfers or strategic vs penal.  I am working on a renovation of a course right now that has far too many bunkers.  90% of them only penalize an already poor shot and are not even in play for the better golfer.  Most of the greenside bunkers are not really “greenside” as they are set well back from the greens.  Furthermore, almost every green has a bunker short and right (the place where 60% of golf shots land).  This leaves the weaker golf with a 20-30 yard bunker shot (one of the toughest shots in the game).  Most likely they will scull it over the green trying to hit it too hard and into another bunker or chunk it out and then are faced with another pitch shot onto the green.  The better golfer doesn’t even see these bunkers because they are so far from the target.  They add extra maintenance costs as well.


All this goes back to balance and not over using any one particular kind of hazard and/or design feature.  I do like the idea of short grass as a hazard around greens as it creates all kinds of shot options for a variety of playing abilities.  A greenside bunker creates one shot option as does a hollow with rough. 

[JESII]

Joe:  What a good question.  You've asked something that's bothered me for years ... the difference between strategy and "strategy."

..............

TRUE strategy is about more than just avoiding a bunker ... it requires a tension between two things, so that it matters on which side one avoids the first.  The tension could be as simple as a better angle into the tilt of the green, or a clear line past another hazard on the next shot.

Tom, this is great. Thank you. It touches on the concept of a Strategic<->Penal continuum that is sometimes thrown around here...but it hits on the point much more effectively.


Strategy is an "if this then what versus if that then what" kind of conversation in your mind and the word tension really encompasses strategic design when you're trying to score.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - you took the words out of my mouth, though as per usual you used 150 words less that I would've!  I like Tom's strategy and "strategy" approach very much; it's much better and subtler than the made-up (and rarely if ever 'true') penal vs strategic dichotomy. To me, there is what the architect intends and then what the individual golfer experiences -- and, as in great music of all styles from time immemorial, the tension-release-and-resolution experience is the key to a satisfying personal engagement with the work/course. But, for me at least, the tension must actually be "tension"...not a light-hearted and empty-headed paean to "options" and "choices"....
P   

[JESII]

And that tension only arises when the next shot matters, right?

[Peter Pallotta]

You're right, Jim, and I hear what you're saying and wouldn't argue with you/the truth. But I will say that worrying about "the next shot" is a privilege and pleasure reserved for the better player; most of the rest of us don't have the luxury and haven't earned the right to think ahead like that and to experience that brand of tension. Sufficient unto the shot right in front of us is our lot; there are troubles enough today to worry about tomorrow. You and Tom may disagree, but you'd be wrong -- though I'm sure many average golfers who play Tom's course can at least recognize and appreiate his 'next shot' ethos even if they can't actually experience it.
Peter

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know if this is right, but in my mind I equate startegic as "choices that allow the golfer to set themselves up, according to their ability" vs penal, which is more of a " execute the shot presented, or face the consequences(penalty shots, etc.).


This has already gone farther than I could have imagined, but with this group it's no surprise.

[Sean_A]

Joe


Sure, strategic simply allows for more choices (where temptation is highlighted) whereas penal is often one choice or maybe more but using the same play line.  The reason I said it isn't worth worrying about this dichotomy or about stronger VS weaker players is that if the archie is looking for a balanced varied design this sort of stuff should simply fall into place and that your design preference will lean one way or the other depending on your philosophical beliefs etc. 


Pietro


Really, you don't think about the next shot?  You simply slam away?  Seems hard to believe.


Ciao

[Jaeger Kovich]

Joe - I have proposed removing a greenside bunker on the second hole of the village club, and replacing the entire bank with tightmow. Sounds like a very similar situation. I don't know if it "strategically" makes the hole any better or much different, but it definitely would make it more interesting. (a small aesthetic improvement too)

[Ira Fishman]

We have side by side threads discussing adding bunkers. This enlightening one and the one about the intriguing changes at Pine Needles. It would be instructive and might further the discussion if Mr. Franz could hop on this one to walk us through the bunker additions at PN. Some photos and ariels would be great too.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Mr. Frantz... Lol

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


Love the topic, and will answer more later...right now on my way to a Stars Bruins game (rare pre noon game for TV)


That said, I have always thought bunker right, bunker left at any green could probably increase strategy by removing one.  Aiming between two hazards doesn't really equate to strategy IMHO.  Similarly, why add bunkers on the outside of a Cape Hole tee shot?


As to TD's comments, and again after reading Broadies book, statistically, it turns out avoiding the hazard is the proven way to lower your score on a hole.  (with 2 stroke penalties played as a must avoid, 1 stroke penalties as a should avoid, but allow less margin for error, and easy hazards more of a fire away proposition)


Or put another way, I have always wondered why, if given a choice, a golfer would rather challenge a hazard with their driver as opposed to a 5 iron?  And, as drives get longer, in reality, the old versions of strategy may be reversed more than they are now.


But, I digress. Short answer, bunker left, bunker right.

[Tom_Doak]

As to TD's comments, and again after reading Broadies book, statistically, it turns out avoiding the hazard is the proven way to lower your score on a hole.  (with 2 stroke penalties played as a must avoid, 1 stroke penalties as a should avoid, but allow less margin for error, and easy hazards more of a fire away proposition)

Jeff:


Sorry but I think you are doing the math wrong on that one, if I understand the study you're talking about.  [I have not read it.] 


Sure, if you compare recovery strokes from a bunker with recovery strokes from the rough on the other side, the bunker comes out higher.  But that misses the point.  If the bunker causes players to aim away from the hole in order to avoid it, then the more fractions of a stroke they're giving up on each of their good shots.  And, of course, the better the player, the more good shots are going to a place where they are no longer making a birdie putt.  So that can result in a HIGHER overall score than just aiming at the flag, making birdie more often, and taking your medicine when you do get in the bunker [aka the vintage Tom Watson, I-can-get-up-and-down-anyway approach].


The one thing I learned from Mr. Dye about great players that really stuck with me was how conservative they are.  If you give them a safe side, they'll usually hedge over that way.  I think that was probably more true for Jack Nicklaus' generation [and Jack himself] than Rory McIlroy and his ilk, but I still think it happens ... and, realistically, I'm not building courses for Rory anyway, only for guys who dream they are anywhere near that good.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean -
I think Jim was speaking about (and rightly praising) a kind of strategy that, in his words, is an "if this then what versus if that then what" kind of conversation. In that context, I meant that for me at least I can only meaningfully (and realistically) focus on the "if this" aspect of the dialogue. If there is a flanking bunker out there 240 yards, I can appreciate (especially post facto) the subtle degrees of choice and various/potential lines of play that will impact the "next shot"; but if I'm trying to score my best, I need to accept that I only have skill enough to think (and play) in much simpler and more black and white terms, e.g. "I don't think I can fly over that bunker, so I will have to try to steer as far away as possible from it  -- and deal with the challenges of the "next shot" only if/when I actually have a next shot..."
Peter

[Matt MacIver]

Indeed, it would be a great exercise to go around one great course we all know well and see how many of its bunkers truly serve a strategic purpose, as opposed to a "strategic" one.

I've never played either Oakland Hills or Firestone but those were the first to come to mind - anything to that?

[Tom_Doak]

Indeed, it would be a great exercise to go around one great course we all know well and see how many of its bunkers truly serve a strategic purpose, as opposed to a "strategic" one.

I've never played either Oakland Hills or Firestone but those were the first to come to mind - anything to that?

Matt:


I wasn't meaning to denigrate certain courses with my proposed exercise ... my point was that even courses we all agree are great examples of design probably have many bunkers that do not add anything to the strategy.


For instance, Augusta National.  Is the fairway bunker on the 1st really strategic - does it pay to be on that side of the fairway?  Maybe sometimes.  The fairway bunker on the 2nd?  Nope.  The bunkers at the 3rd?  I guess there are times when it's better to be over there.  The bunkers left on the 5th?  I've never noticed players trying to hug that side of the fairway.  The right-hand bunker on the 8th is strategic, much better line up the hill from there.  But that's only about half the fairway bunkers, and Augusta is revered as a strategic course with minimal bunkering.

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating, Tom's post just above this one. I just learned that there is a *second* reason - besides my lack of skill and nerve - why I rarely think about the "next shot". If even a famous course by Dr Mac has some bunkering that isn't in any meaningful sense 'strategic', you can only imagine the case on the dozens of nameless publics I've played over the years.  In other words, I don't try to skirt bunkers in order to gain the ideal line of play in large part because experience has taught me that in the vast majority of cases there *is* no ideal line of play.

I'm not kidding: for me what Tom just wrote is the single most important and eye opening post I've ever read here. I have always thought I was missing something and/or not understanding something and/or not good enough to play the ideal lines; instead, it was simply that I've been playing a whole lot of very crappy courses in my life -- courses with bunkers tossed out willy nilly by lazy and contemptuous architects. I guess they thought that none of us hacks would ever notice, and I guess they were right!

Also, I will now never be able to look at Augusta in the same way again.