[MCirba]

Depth has been tried. Placement has been tried. Every variation of front wall configuration and  squiggles and Rough hewn rip outs has been tried . We seem to be left with uncomfortable stances and uneven lies as a way to make bunkers penal again.


I'm finding myself loving the trench bunkers and the odd configurations angles and slopes of the bunkers. One could argue they might not be placed exactly where One might want them on the golf course but Lord knows when you get in them they present all kind of interesting complicated problems. I think that's a very good thing.

[noonan]

Lets hope this stays what it is....an aberration.

[Matthew Essig]

The architects said they were tired of "pillow bunkers" being the norm in the US. Soft, gentle, welcoming.


I wouldn't mind seeing more trench bunkers, but I think it depends on location, dirt type, strategy, etc. When the fairways are 40+ yards wide, they work.

[Don Jordan]

The architects said they were tired of "pillow bunkers" being the norm in the US. Soft, gentle, welcoming.


I wouldn't mind seeing more trench bunkers, but I think it depends on location, dirt type, strategy, etc. When the fairways are 40+ yards wide, they work.

I think the good thing is it might stop pros choosing to miss in bunkers over other options if there is a random chance of being completely expletived

[jeffwarne]

+1 Mike
Maybe a few less but +1

[Paul Carey]

They truly make the player aware.  There are a number of size of sandy areas at Bulls Bay including large expanses of sandy waster areas, normal bunkers and trench bunkers (as you called them). The trench bunkers are the ones to avoid.  Sometimes fine and sometimes needing the player to hit a creative and well executed recovery.  I like them....a lot.

[Dan Herrmann]

Lord knows we have such bunkers @ French Creek - an early Gil Hanse design.


I like them.  A lot.

[BHoover]

I hope so. Bunkers should be hazards. These are hazards. More please.

[Ronald Montesano]

I love the intentional/unintentional capitalization of "One" in Mike's initial post. Reference to God?


Since trench bunkers and non-pillow bunkers were not the standard during the 1890s-1945, there's no reason to return to them in a restoration.


Golfers rarely return to a golf course that challenges them too much, that penalizes them too often, that brings chance and rub-o into the equation too frequently.


Perhaps the way to win the day is to pull a trick from old Doc Mac's book: build one trench bunker in a strategic place, then convince the membership/ownership that 5 more around the course might be a good thing.

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't seen any of the telecast yet as I got home from Germany last night.  But I'm curious if anyone knows how many of these bunkers were original, and how many were added in the various renovations. 


I only saw the course when it was new, and I don't remember the bunkers being strikingly different.  Chris Hunt, who shaped some of the bunkers under the direction of Ron Whitten, told me that he had built some deliberately awkward hazards, but I don't remember that many of them, other than the one in front of the 15th green.  I did see a few that I thought were different - and that might get washed out during thunderstorms.


We tried to do "trench bunkers" at The Rawls Course to protect the sand from wind erosion, but I haven't played it enough to know if they really extracted more of a penalty.  After our work at Woodhall Spa, I've been thinking about a more penal style of bunkering for a new project we are planning, so I'll be curious to see the TV this weekend.  Note, though, that Pine Valley's penal hazards didn't start a revolution, so I don't know why Erin Hills would.

[Randy Thompson]

I don`t have a problem with the difficulty factor, I get that and I am favor of such, but come on, they have got to be a maintenance nightmare. Seems to me, we need to move in the other direction.

[Matthew Essig]

I don`t have a problem with the difficulty factor, I get that and I am favor of such, but come on, they have got to be a maintenance nightmare. Seems to me, we need to move in the other direction.

They have said a few times that other than raking the bunkers and string mowing the sides, they don't do any work on them. They let wind and rain erosion do whatever they like to them.

[Mark_Fine]

I just got back from Bandon Dunes and Pacific has several "trench" bunkers!

[Tom_Doak]

Upon further review, it seems this question is pretty naive.


At every club where I consult, they are rebuilding the bunkers with liners and perfect new sand so that the members will never have a difficult recovery shot.  I don't think most clubs are going to switch to "unkempt" no matter what they see on TV.

[MCirba]

Upon further review, it seems this question is pretty naive.

Tom,


I prefer "provocative". 


Seriously, I don't think it will start a revolution either but one of the great things about the second Golden Age of the past twenty/thirty years or so is that it has reintroduced a degree of free form expression and randomness that have pushed shot outcomes into a greater degree of unpredictability.


Seeing another slightly different blush on the idea of "bunkers as a hazard" is refreshing, if not entirely orignal.  At the end of the day, mass exposure to even the very concept nudges the needle a little bit towards the type of things we celebrate here in terms of mass acceptability and I think that's a good thing for architecture.

[Sean_A]

I don`t have a problem with the difficulty factor, I get that and I am favor of such, but come on, they have got to be a maintenance nightmare. Seems to me, we need to move in the other direction.

It is an easy trade to cut bunker numbers drastically and make the remaining bunkers more meaningful with placement and severity. It's just a shifting of priority, not a budget decision.


Ciao

[Randy Thompson]

 

I don`t have a problem with the difficulty factor, I get that and I am favor of such, but come on, they have got to be a maintenance nightmare. Seems to me, we need to move in the other direction.

They have said a few times that other than raking the bunkers and string mowing the sides, they don't do any work on them. They let wind and rain erosion do whatever they like to them.

The problem is the high amount of hand raking involved with such abstract design borders and what is the defintion of some string mowing? 10 hours per week, one person or 40 hours per week, three persons. I also have my doubts on they let the wind and rain erosion do whatever they like? I have seen that often and they don`t look like what we are seeing this week on this course. In conclusión, Dr. house says it best, " Everybody lies!"

[Matt_Cohn]

If you want to make bunkers more difficult for tournaments, rake them roughly (or don't rake them).


I played a tournament where they did this (inadvertently, I think) a couple of weeks ago. It changed things dramatically. They were really hard.


You don't need trenches. You just don't.

[MCirba]

Sean,


Both Pine Valley and Muirfield have trench bunkers and Oakmont and Garden City have similar features.


God save the trench bunker!!   

[Steve Lang]

Mike,


Sorry, I can't see any revolutions started by anything at Erin Hills..  and there's certainly many trench bunkers out there, like these little babies:

[jeffwarne]

I don`t have a problem with the difficulty factor, I get that and I am favor of such, but come on, they have got to be a maintenance nightmare. Seems to me, we need to move in the other direction.

It is an easy trade to cut bunker numbers drastically and make remain more meaningful with placement and severity. It's just a shifting of priority, not a budget decision.


+1
again


Ciao

[John Kirk]

I'm pleased that the bunkers are yielding some difficult shots.  That's great.  However, I have an aesthetic issue with the Erin Hills bunkers.  I don't find them attractive to the eye.  Both the size of the bunkers, and the intricate shapes, seem incongruous with the scale of the big, gently rolling golf course.

[Randy Thompson]

I'm pleased that the bunkers are yielding some difficult shots.  That's great.  However, I have an aesthetic issue with the Erin Hills bunkers.  I don't find them attractive to the eye.  Both the size of the bunkers, and the intricate shapes, seem incongruous with the scale of the big, gently rolling golf course.

Like most art its subjective,. I find them a breath of fresh air and  deeply appreciate the artistic value. At least its not set in a parkland setting. I have seen that a little to often in the last ten years, yuck!

[Carl Rogers]

Revolution for the entire game???  Or just the Pro game???

[Paul Rudovsky]

At The Country Club (Brookline) the greenside bunkers have the following characteristics:
--relatively deep
--small in square footage
--long in actual perimeter ("erratic borders create peninsulas, tongues, etc etc)
--relatively soft sand
--most do not "flash" toward the center of the green


As a result, sidehill and down hill stances are fairly common, as are stances with one or both feet out of the bunker


So to some degree it is not clear that bunkers like this did not exist in the first "golden age".  And I agree, they are supposed to be hazards.  I think PVGC had it right when they had no rakes on the course...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()