Why do we need bunkers (on most courses)?

[Jack Carney]

I was really making a much more generic thought. The lines, slopes derived from and color differences (sand and shadows) of a well placed bunker indicates or defines the shot required. As I was relating this could be included in ones thoughts of being cosmetic, general appearance and even strategy. I think of definition as a part of all the above in a way. The well placed bunker literally helps define the shot required. Much more obvious, and the reverse of, the fairway. Nothing enlightening here. As the question was why do we need bunkers - I think golf without bunkers would reduce definition and therefore part of the beauty of playing. Most all the great courses have beautifully placed and designed bunkers that fit the land and speak to shots required. Not much more fun than hitting those shots IMHO.

[Sean_A]

Hmmm, I don't think of the Road Hole Bunker as defining the hole.  To me the bunker presents one of the temptations of the hole.  A defining bunker is a roadmap bunker imo.  Meaning it lays out the route of which direction to head.  The Road Hole Bunker is more complicated than laying out a route.  The bunker asks the golfer a question rather than make demands. 


Ciao

[Pete Lavallee]

Jack,


It’s an interesting theory but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around how a bunker “defines the shot”? Could you give an example, sorry The Old Course has already been used.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
There are many times when a bunker defines a shot (or it at least plays heavily on the golfers mind).  Think about Hell Bunker at The Old Course, the Church Pews at Oakmont, the Devil's Asshole at Pine Valley, the Cardinal Bunker at Prestwick, the Himalayas bunker at St. Enodoc, the center of the green bunker at Riviera #6, .... on and on.  There is clearly a place for bunkers on golf courses but not always and everywhere 

[Tom_Doak]

Jack,


It’s an interesting theory but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around how a bunker “defines the shot”? Could you give an example, sorry The Old Course has already been used.

MacKenzie, Behr, and Simpson all wrote about how bunkers helped golfers to judge distances -- MacKenzie compared them to lighthouses or channel markers -- and if you wanted to make a hole harder for the golfer to decipher, you should omit the bunkers that provided hints about where to go. 


Jack is arguing for the opposite, as I suppose many modern golfers would, even with a rangefinder in their hands for guidance.

[Mike_Young]

MacKenzie, Behr, and Simpson all wrote about how bunkers helped golfers to judge distances -- MacKenzie compared them to lighthouses or channel markers -- and if you wanted to make a hole harder for the golfer to decipher, you should omit the bunkers that provided hints about where to go. 





Bunkers can be a cop out or a form of laziness in design...example a wide fairway that is really not wide is much more strategic than one with a bunker on the inside corner hitting you between the eyes as to how to play the hole.  IMHO...   But those bunkers might get the next job vs. the guy who did not use them.

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps its worth its own thread.  But is it interesting to compare and contrast why bunkers have remained on courses and cops are gone?


Seems like each has thier own advantages and disadvantages, but perhaps its because bunkers can be made to look more natural?

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps its worth its own thread.  But is it interesting to compare and contrast why bunkers have remained on courses and cops are gone?
Seems like each has thier own advantages and disadvantages, but perhaps its because bunkers can be made to look more natural?

Cops would likely have had had wooden fences on top and been used at times as large size holding pens for grazing animals. With the reduction in grazing animals in many places, the reason for cops/pens would have likely diminished or declined altogether.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps its worth its own thread.  But is it interesting to compare and contrast why bunkers have remained on courses and cops are gone?
Seems like each has thier own advantages and disadvantages, but perhaps its because bunkers can be made to look more natural?

Cops would likely have had had wooden fences on top and been used at times as large size holding pens for grazing animals. With the reduction in grazing animals in many places, the reason for cops/pens would have likely diminished or declined altogether.
Atb

I was thinking of the mound style cops I've seen in many pictures of older courses that are 2-3 feet tall and run in straight lines at varying angles to the line of play.  Seems like they are just as unnatural to the course as a bunker is, especially a course in an area where sand isn't naturally occuring.


Oakmont is the one high profile course that still uses an inverted implementation of these...

[Garland Bayley]

Inverted cops! Really Kalen?  For some reason you didn't want to write ditch?

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, they do provide the average golfer with a fairly constant (if modest) level of satisfaction.
On the golf course I know best, I can’t think of many bunkers that are actually necessary to the challenge and/or strategy of any given golf hole. I can ‘erase them' in my mind’s eye and still imagine playing those holes in exactly the same way.
But then I think of all the pleasant feelings I’ve enjoyed over the years by hitting over them, and around them, and away from them, and even out of them -- and I’m glad they’re there.
I know they serve mostly directional or aesthetic functions, and that there really *shouldn’t be* much satisfaction in ‘taking on’ a fairway bunker that’s only 180-190 yards off the tee, or in 'avoiding' a left-green-side bunker when there's 30 yards of green to work with and you're almost always approaching it from the right; but, while there really shouldn't be, I have to admit that there often *is* that satisfaction nonetheless.
Is the course and such bunkers “pandering” the average golfer? Yes, probably — but when it’s a modest local course that’s been serving the community for 40+ years and offers a terrific walk and good conditions for $35 a round, I don’t mind too much.
Peter

[Garland Bayley]

...
But then I think of all the pleasant feelings I’ve enjoyed over the years by hitting over them, and around them, and away from them, and even out of them -- and I’m glad they’re there.
...
Peter

Can't you get the pleasant feelings from hitting over, around, away from, and out of/off of hollows/humps found on say Eastward Ho!

[Peter Pallotta]

I very much could and would, Garland - but I won't likely be playing Eastward Ho or similar courses any time soon. The course I *will* play (well, in five or six months) has none of those interesting humps and hollows; it only has the kind of bunkers I described. So, in that context, I'd say that I'm glad they're there instead of not being there.
Peter

[Tom ORourke]

My home course has minimal bunkering. In fact, many of the greens would be easier with bunkers. There is a course on the RTJ trail that has zero bunkers, and I really did not like it. Mostly as any push up green repelled the balls into the trees or a hazard. If there was more room around the greens maybe it would have worked, but not close to the woods. Six of our eighteen holes have no green side bunkers, and they are not needed to make the green complexes difficult. As I said, often bunkers make things easier, which is why I like them. As well as the aesthetic value. Look at Riviera or Royal Melbourne. Hard to imagine it catching on in any big way. 

[JBovay]

I'm looking at a project now where bunkers are unnecessary, but if I really go to zero, I'm sure there will be a bunch of panelists ready to opine that hitting from sand is an integral part of golf and a course without bunkers is therefore lacking in shot values, or some other b.s.


Do I agree?  No.  There are some great courses without bunkers, from Arrowtown to Kington to Royal Ashdown Forest.  But none of those are ranked in the top 100, and my client wants his course to be ranked.  So I will probably have to leave the decision to him whether to build twenty bunkers, or just not build any.

Tom: very cool. I was hoping you'd have a response like this. After thinking about this issue for the last few weeks, Royal Ashdown Forest has become a must-play for me if I ever make it to London and have enough time to play a few rounds.

Maybe bunkers need to be left unraked--and even totally unmaintained--to be a cross between dunes and bunkers?  Pine Valley would be a good example.

Corollary question: how much cheaper would it be to build and maintain bunkers if they could be truly hazardous?

Tim and Jim: I've been thinking about this too. But I understand (from an architect with whom I had the good fortune to play once and from a former grounds crew intern at Pine Valley) that the Pine Valley aesthetic is expensive to maintain. If we merely left bunkers unraked and pulled out the weeds once a year, yes, this would cut maintenance costs. And to Tim's point: yes, I think it could be cheaper to build smaller bunkers with steeper walls and a higher chance of a severe penalty.

JBovay,
This thread can't possibly address all the reasons for bunkers or against bunkers but there are some pretty good posts so far.  Some simple answers are:


- Historical significance as they were part of most seaside courses


- Architects feel a need to add them because they are associated with golf courses


- Bunkers can be one of the most striking aspects of a golf course, why do you think so many architects spend soooo much time making them look so artistic and dramatic and/or "natural"


- Bunkers clearly look artificial on most Parkland courses but architects are trying to emulate seaside golf and again feel the need to add them


- Actually bunkers don't necessarily slow up play especially greenside bunkers as there are few options to ponder when in most of those kind of bunkers and players just get in and play their shot


Too much to talk about here but as with most aspects of golf course design, any thing or feature that is overused is probably not good.

Mark: thanks. I'm sure your book has many additional reasons supporting their common use. I read it years ago, when I was a student and checked it out from my school library, so I don't have a copy.

[Sean_A]

I very much could and would, Garland - but I won't likely be playing Eastward Ho or similar courses any time soon. The course I *will* play (well, in five or six months) has none of those interesting humps and hollows; it only has the kind of bunkers I described. So, in that context, I'd say that I'm glad they're there instead of not being there.
Peter

Pietro

Interesting take on the matter...keeping things in the realm of the realistic...which I appreciate.  A huge percentage of golfers have few choices when it comes right down to it.  The most basic choice is to choose to play or not regardless of ideal design concepts etc. I don't share you patience, but maybe one day the bug will bite again.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - you raise a fundamental point about all our discussions here, ie that behind even the most reasoned/objective post there lies a personal and subjective experience and history. On one level we can meaningfully communicate, but on another level we’re all just listening to bird songs in the forest or wind through the trees. (I think it was Nietzsche who wrote “Every philosophy contains within it the author’s autobiography”). It's striking how differently you and I approach our golfing lives and our participation on gca.com.   

From years of reading your posts I know that you’ve long played and loved the game, on two continents no less, and deeply appreciate its great fields of play. Your resulting perspective on here is broad (in your ‘live and let live way’), and at the same time your personal preferences and choices are quite specific. It’s good to read of the pleasure you get when these come together at some little gem of a North Carolina course or upon rediscovering a terrific English inland as part of a winter tour. But it’s clear that, at this stage in your golfing life, these gems and rediscoveries are what make the game interesting/worthwhile to you.

With me, on the other hand, it’s the very opposite: I see (or think I see) what makes - very specifically - for ideal golf course architecture and for the kind of courses I would most like to play, and I enjoy reading & writing about that on here; but since I took up the game late and am loving it more and more with each passing year, I’m at the stage where I could very happily play every single day on whatever course I have access to, and with all sorts of equipment, and with a card and pencil mentality.

In short: you have patience and broad tastes on here, but little of it in your actual golfing life; while I have little patience and narrow tastes on here, and quite a lot of it when it comes to my actual golfing life.

It’s sort of amazing that we can communicate at all!
Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Very true, I don't have much patience with forking over time and money to play mundane courses.  Consequently, I play far less than five years ago and really want to focus on the small courses which are less likely to be screwed up by modern "improvements" such as roadmap bunkers.  That said, I also enjoy games at big guns.  For example, playing Pinehurst a few months ago was a serious eye opener in more than one way. Bottom line, I am interested by interesting architecture, it just so happens that I often prefer the low key atmosphere of the small clubs without all the production and instruction. 


Truth be told...I often have a hard time following/relating to your posts, but I read them all as I get more than enough good insight to make it worth my time.


Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

We do need them, we just don't need as many as most courses have. Where we need them most is when we have no other natural features available because you can't always use short grass and grass banks. After a while it will all blend together.


btw, I finish my Best of Golf piece on Bunkering with "Are they losing their strategic value?"

It's here: http://golfclubatlas.com/best-of-golf/on-bunkers-by-ian-andrew/

[Mark_Fine]

Royal Ashdown Forest is a course every golfer interested in golf architecture should play.  The only place on the property that "needs" a bunker is in the practice area so members can still practice bunker shots for when they go to play other golf courses.  But that won't happen because bunkers are not allowed anywhere on the property per a local ordinance. 


I think most here agree, there is definitely a place for bunkers on the majority of golf courses but generally less is more  


I could be wrong, but I also think that while I generally like them, the style of lacy-edged/more ragged looking bunkers will pass.  I remember talking to a superintendent (a very good one I might add) about maintaining bunkers like that.  He said, "No worries, we will eventually soften all those edges (many are falling down anyway) and it will be fine".  Interesting comment. 

[Jack Carney]

But then I think of all the pleasant feelings I’ve enjoyed over the years by hitting over them, and around them, and away from them, and even out of them -- and I’m glad they’re there.

EXACTLY - and the more gnarly the better! Yes - natural features as well. The quarry at Merion doesn't need any bunkers in it and yet a couple are built in there. Same in general with all courses. Its difficult to find properties that have numerous natural features to hit over, around or away so bunkers were created; maybe. Do we build to many bunkers today - IMO Yes - do we use enough outstanding natural features to play over, around or away from - IMO No. The back nine at Galloway National has several exhilarating shots to hit; both natural and created.

[Mark_Fine]

Jack,
Galloway is a fantastic Fazio design.  Tom often gets blasted on this site (and maybe sometimes rightfully so), but he is a genius and can build some absolutely stunning and creative designs.  Galloway is one of them.  Tom can definitely over do it with bunkers and too much eye candy but other architects we all have high respect for can as well.  Just keep him away from "restoring" the classics.  That is not his forte.  If you read his book he will tell you the same. 
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

The quarry at Merion doesn't need any bunkers in it and yet a couple are built in there. Same in general with all courses. Its difficult to find properties that have numerous natural features to hit over, around or away so bunkers were created; maybe.

Some bunkers are built just so you can find your ball and hit it.  I'm sure that's the reason for the bunkers in the quarry at Merion, and I can tell you it's the case for some at Barnbougle Dunes, too.  Building a bunker there was less expensive than adding turf, and we were on a budget!

[Michael Whitaker]

I have come to agree that most courses have WAY too many bunkers.

Sterling Forsythe and I played Royal Ashdown Forest before this year's Buda. This was my first zero-bunker course and I was impressed with how much I really didn't miss the bunkers. The course was interesting, challenging and fun... which is about all one could ask... and, the lack of bunkers was a non-factor.

Huntercombe is another course with many non-bunker challenges. As I have commented many times before, Huntercombe is a course that all architects should be required to study before they are allowed to design their first course.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - thanks for the reminder re your essay on bunkers.

I enjoyed your writing (and your insights & expertise), and your last paragraph neatly summarizes the vital strategic function that bunkers can — if not always do — continue to serve in the modern era.

I was also struck in particular by one of your earliest paragraphs, the one that references how C&C at Sand Hills *angled* many of the tee shots in relation to the fearsome-looking bunkers and blowouts there.

Because of some recent threads (eg on the Leven template) I’d been thinking about how fundamental to golf course design such angles/diagonals really are — whether in the form of a bern or a cape or a green oriented at 45 degrees to the line of play, or of tees angled towards (potential) hazards.

On fairly flat or featureless sites especially, the combination of such angles/diagonals with deep or frightening-looking bunkers seems to me the most basic — and essential — tool in an architect’s bag of tricks.

Any course where an architect has well-utilized even this one tool alone would be, for me, worth playing.

But in my experience — ie playing few great courses, just a single famous one, some good-to-very good courses, and many just adequate ones — it is striking how infrequently architects actually do utilize this tool as well as they might.

I’ve never understood it, really. I tend to assume that most professionals — in any profession — are actually good and proficient professionals. But having played many a golf course now where the architect *hasn’t* made manifest this fundamental design principle, I’m starting to wonder. I mean, if you’re not using diagonals in conjunction with hazards, what exactly *are* you doing to make the field of play an intriguing and challenging one?

Anyway, thanks again for a very good read.

Peter