Ross Cross Bunkers

[Mike Hendren]

Did Donald J. Ross make frequent use of 2 or 3 cross bunkers, often set diagonally on par fours that were 50+/- yards before the green?  Examples off the top of my head include the 9th and 18th at Miami Valley, the 9th at Plainfield and the 13th at Holston Hills.  Others? 

If so, what was their purpose?  To create a forced carry after a foozled tee shot?  To distort depth perception?  Heaven forbid, aesthetics? 

Mike

[Ed Homsey]

The front 9 at Thendara Golf Club, in upstate New York, has some classic cross bunkering, done by Ross, that is very typical of pre-1900 golf courses.

[Pete Lavallee]

Mike,


Are the bunkers you're referencing set into an opportune part of the landscape or created from scratch on flat ground?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Ross had a variety of different design styles/preferences as he progressed through his career but yes he used bunkers well short of greens on many occasions.  Be clear, his frequent use does not mean he was formulaic.  He was NOT.
Mark

[Tyler Kearns]

Mike,


Ross was designing before fairway irrigation was the norm for golf courses, so bunkers 50 yards short of the green, especially on longer holes would be ideal to challenge running approach shots.


TK

[Matt MacIver]

The 17th at Carolina Golf Club is one of the coolest bunkers I've ever seen.  No idea if it was Ross or a recent Ross restoration, but I hope the former.

[Matt Wharton]

The 17th at Carolina Golf Club is one of the coolest bunkers I've ever seen.  No idea if it was Ross or a recent Ross restoration, but I hope the former.

Matt,


That long right hand greenside bunker on No. 17 is pretty cool with a really neat "walk out" feature at the far end.  When we underwent our renovation/restoration with Kris Spence in 2008, he moved the green from its original location approximately 30 to 40 yards to the right to give more space between it and the neighboring 4th hole.


Ironically Kris sketched the new 17th green to contain two greenside bunkers on the right but decided in the field to make the change and combine the two bunkers into one.  His original sketch of the green showing two bunkers hangs with several others in the clubhouse bar and I always get people to guess which hole it is and they cannot.

[JESII]

His LuLu has many examples, as you may remember...1, 2, 7, 10, 14 & 18.

[Mike Hendren]

Pete, your supposition is a good one.  Many of these bunkers are set into a rise in the fairway. 

Mark, I agree that we tend to pigeon-hole Ross bunkers.  There is a sketch of his in the Tufts Archives that shows side profiles various bunker styles. One can assume they he deployed some variance of them all throughout his extensive portfolio - not just the flat bottoms with turned up edges.  Or at least that's what the farmers did (nod to Mike Young!).

Thanks.

[Dunlop_White]

I often call these "fore-bunkers" just shy of greens (whereas "cross bunkers" are just off the tees). Anyway, their intended use often depends on the movement of the land and the context of the hole. But I have found in most instances, perhaps as an unintended consequence, that fore-bunkers most always make recovery play more interesting from the flanking rough or vegetation of a hole. This is when they really come into play.

[Sean_A]

I often call these "fore-bunkers" just shy of greens (whereas "cross bunkers" are just off the tees). Anyway, their intended use often depends on the movement of the land and the context of the hole. But I have found in most instances, perhaps as an unintended consequence, that fore-bunkers most always make recovery play more interesting from the flanking rough or vegetation of a hole. This is when they really come into play.

Dunlop

I agree.  Though cross bunkers (using the term as a bunker across a fairway - not only in front of tees) do as well.


I first thought of LuLu.  Are all those bunkers Ross?

Ciao

[Tim Gavrich]

Shennecossett has a healthy amount of cross-bunkering, which lends a periodic sense of narrowness to a big, open site.

[Sean_A]

Depending on how you look at them, Franklin Hills has a few holes with bunkers jutting into fairways well short of greens. Grosse Ile has its 9th which does this as well. Hope Valley has a hanful as well.

Ciao

[Tom Bagley]

I think the cross bunkers were strategic in that they forced the player to make a decision as to whether they could be carried to reach the green.  Or perhaps a well-placed tee shot could allow the player to circumvent the cross bunker.  It seems to me we think too much about "par" or reaching holes in regulation figures, while I think Ross designed holes with the understanding that some players might reach in two shots, while others might require three  - or more!  (The same strategy could also apply to long one-shot holes, where some players might require two shots to reach the green.)

The cross-bunkers made the second-shot more interesting for the moderate hitter who may be tempted to make the carry as well as for the very short hitter, who might need three full blows to get home.  In a match play situation, the bold play might yield an advantage, but a failure to make the carry might lead your opponent to choose the more conservative play. 

Without a cross bunker - or some other hazard short of the green - the second shot would be very uninteresting for the player who required three shots to reach the green.  There are many Ross holes in New England in the 380-450 yard range with cross bunkers of some sort, where reaching the green in two shots would have been a challenge for many players.  For many players, carrying those cross bunkers remains a challenge today.   

[Mike Hendren]

Excellent post Tom, but I find it interesting that Ross would feel compelled to challenge the moderate hitter as I'm under the impression he generally preferred to defend par on and around the greens and also saw golf as a recreational pursuit for the masses. 

Mike

[David Stewart]

Did Donald J. Ross make frequent use of 2 or 3 cross bunkers, often set diagonally on par fours that were 50+/- yards before the green?  Examples off the top of my head include the 9th and 18th at Miami Valley, the 9th at Plainfield and the 13th at Holston Hills.  Others? 

If so, what was their purpose?  To create a forced carry after a foozled tee shot?  To distort depth perception?  Heaven forbid, aesthetics? 

Mike

Mike,

Here is an old aerial of Miami Valley (sorry for the quality, as it is a picture of a picture in a glass frame). I don't know the exact year. You can see the cross bunkers you mentioned on 9 and 18 (for those that don't know these are the greens in the top left-center near the clubhouse, with the holes running parallel. 18 on the left). The ones on 18 are about 100 yards from the green and are not reachable from the tee. The ones on 9 are slightly moved from their original position (definitely the one on the left). They now sit about 120 yards from the green and are smaller and closer together, and are definitely reachable from the tee for stronger players. Additionally, there were originally cross bunkers on 7 (tee at the bottom right corner running toward the top left) and 11 (bottom middle running left to right). The one on 7 covered almost the entire fairway while the one on 11 covered the left half. The one on 11 would be reachable from the tee, and possibly 7 as well.

On 9, I think the strategy is to force the player to lay up short or hit a very accurate tee shot. On 11, it was preferable to approach that green from the left side so being nearer to that bunker was favorable. The bunkers on 18 are not reachable from the tee and the one on 7 would have only been for very big hitters. Because the approach is so downhill, I always thought the bunkers on 18 were to prevent a topped second shot from being rewarded. The approach to 7 is also downhill (although not as sharply) so that bunker could have had a similar function.

[Pete Lavallee]

I can just see DR looking at a possible tee site and declaring," shoot I need some fill. Hey McGovern, dig me a couple of bunkers in that hill face and bring the dirt over here!"

[Tom Bagley]

Excellent post Tom, but I find it interesting that Ross would feel compelled to challenge the moderate hitter as I'm under the impression he generally preferred to defend par on and around the greens and also saw golf as a recreational pursuit for the masses. 

Mike

Mike:
I guess I would question whether Ross was trying to defend a strict par or not.  Many of his more heavily contoured greens in New England are on what we would consider half-par holes:  short 5s and long 3s.  By heavily contouring the green, and adding hazards short of the green, the short approach shot becomes more interesting for the player who can't reach in "regulation" - while demanding a truly exceptional shot by the longer hitter.  As a result, length without precision is not rewarded.  Examples would include the 7th, 10th and 11th at Charles River; 17th at Brae Burn; 4th and 18th at Oak Hill (Fitchburg).  Better players today often complain when the short 5s are changed on the scorecard to par 4s, because, in their view, "Ross did not design them to be two-shot holes."  But many of these holes were two-shot holes in the 1920s and 1930s for the elite player.  Ross was at Oak Hill for the 1935 Mass Open, when the winner,  Gene Sarazen, easily reached all the short 5s in two shots, including the 18th.  The only accommodation made for the 1936 Open at Oak Hill was that the 18th hole was changed on the scorecard to a par four.