Aiming Bunkers?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

https://cl.ly/2f2s3w2I2O2I/hole.jpg

(I didn't want to embed the image here as it's a bit large.)

I'm new to this so if I get some things wrong, please correct me.

But what I've tried to create is a hole with a bunker left protecting the better angle to the green - from the left.

I would think the hole would be okay with just that one bunker, but on the right, at about 310 yards off the tee, I've put another smaller bunker for the purpose of this discussion (I hope): is it "okay" to have a bunker positioned largely for aiming purposes? The right-hand bunker isn't really in play for a lot of golfers, but its presence alerts golfers to where the "right side" is, and they can aim to have their ball finish left of it somewhere.

Or is the idea of having a bunker that's almost entirely for aiming purposes a pointless expenditure, and one you could accomplish with a chocolate drop or some other little feature (including perhaps a mowing line that makes it obvious where the right side is)?

In thinking back I've played some holes where some feature - well out of play (more so than my 310-yard bunker), seems to exist only to act as an aiming point for play, or to define an "edge" or a line. Sometimes they're trees, sometimes bunkers, sometimes a mound or a slope or some other feature.

Am I likely reading these wrong? Do architects provide "aiming points" that don't otherwise really feature into the play of the hole (again maybe my 310-yard bunker isn't a good example, but pretend that it's not a PGA Tour course, and it won't really come into play). If so, is there value to having an "aiming point" bunker, or is that a waste of resources (money, time) when some other feature may work better?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Erik,


I've always been a fan of a short bunker that provides a "gun sight" aiming point, indicating the correct line or perhaps the line on which a golfer may find some blind trouble further down the hole. In the latter case, the decision would be to play right or left of the "gun sight bunker" in an attempt to avoid the unseen trouble. Like your example, such a bunker would also be "out of play", but on the short side.

[Ben Malach]

Erik,


to be honest I am not a fan of the bunker but that might be my strong preference for obfuscating lines of play. Then asking players to find the lines of charm that are in place on the hole. My preference is to create aim points out land forms, features existing or through the mowing of walking path. Using these little features rather than a bunker is a little more budget friendly and help integrate the course into the surroundings. As for the bunker that is mentioned in your post. IMHO there is limited value in maintaining a bunker that will see little use from a majority of golfers.   

[Tom_Doak]

Why do you want to tell players where to aim?


And why would you want to build a hole where everyone was supposed to aim toward the same place?

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for starting this thread as it does open up discussion.
I would suggest that the last sentence in the OP is pretty accurate - "waste of resources (time, money)". Perhaps a visit to an optician for a pair of new glasses would be more appropriate in aiding aiming and better value!!
atb

[Sean_A]

I am in atb's camp, aiming bunkers are largely a waste of money and dumb down architecture.  The ones I can get behind might be a natural spot for a blind drive over a hill/incline/ridge...especially if there is a handful of these type shots on a course. That is as much about breaking up the visuals as anything because I have found aiming poles to work just fine if a club wants to help a brutha out. That said, I use bunkers that I can't reach for aiming points all the time.  That is one problem with wave (bunkers slotted in at designated distances trying to keep the same type of shot the same for all) bunkering.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Why do you want to tell players where to aim?


And why would you want to build a hole where everyone was supposed to aim toward the same place?

Tom


I'm not sure that aiming bunkers necessarily do tell a player where to aim but they certainly help with the golfer getting their bearings, and then decide where to aim after that. In that respect they are the same as trees, hills, houses or any other structure that gives the golfer his bearings.


For example, how many locals would partially lose their bearings on the back nine at TOC without the church spires etc in the background.


On the second question, I agree, why ?


Niall

[Ian Andrew]

Donald Ross stated that “Hazards and bunkers are placed so as to force a man to use judgement and to exercise mental control in making the correct recovery.

The placement of hazards is our way of testing the abilities of the player and adding interest to the game.The bunkers on the inside of the hole are the ones that define the challenge and create the coveted risk and reward scenarios. Outside  ones can matter if they are definitely in play. But the ones beyond play there to provide a line are there to make players comfortable.

When aiming bunkers are present and no inside bunkering is in play, this is essentially a dumbing down of the game designed to inflate your ego and make you score better. That's where a golf course and golf course architect loses me.

I'm a strong believer we "generally" need to use less bunkers and have each and every bunker become more important. The aiming bunker is the easiest and simplest place to eliminate first.

[Niall C]

Ian
 
I recall when I was a member at Silloth, there was a bunker about 60 yards or so short of the green on the 7th hole. It was out of reach for even the big hitters most days and certainly not in play off the tee for the rest of us mere mortals. I only ever got in it once with a second shot and that was a bit of a running top so for me it was never in play other than giving me something to aim at or off, with the tee shot.
 
Nonetheless when it was filled in by the 2 handicap green keeper because it was not in play, there were many in the club who could tell him a different story. And that is where architects lose me, when they put the blinkers on and design for regulation golf from the scratch golfer and forget that weaker players like to be challenged too. 
 
Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Ian
 
I recall when I was a member at Silloth, there was a bunker about 60 yards or so short of the green on the 7th hole. It was out of reach for even the big hitters most days and certainly not in play off the tee for the rest of us mere mortals. I only ever got in it once with a second shot and that was a bit of a running top so for me it was never in play other than giving me something to aim at or off, with the tee shot.
 
Nonetheless when it was filled in by the 2 handicap green keeper because it was not in play, there were many in the club who could tell him a different story. And that is where architects lose me, when they put the blinkers on and design for regulation golf from the scratch golfer and forget that weaker players like to be challenged too. 
 
Niall

Niall:


That's not an aiming bunker.  That was a bunker for the second shot, and probably a good one.  One of the problems I have with the Slope rating system is that bunkers like that are considered non-factors, but they do have a material effect on play.


The aiming bunkers we are talking about are things like a bunker on the outside of a fairway as it makes a dogleg -- somewhere the B player would never aim for his second shot.  They are all too common in the U.S. on the misguided notion that they help "turn" the dogleg.  I realized from my time in the UK that they were misleading, because in the UK the thinking is the opposite way around -- if you had a bunker to work with, the hole would play closely around it, not away from it.

[Jack Carney]

I totally agree that the player should aim on his intended best line of play. Many time I do use a bunker with which to aim but the architect should have already done his work without this thought.


We just removed all the bunkers at Cedar Ridge and replaced with about a 40% reduction in total. The course went from a penal design to a strategic one. Less is definitely better

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why do you want to tell players where to aim?

And why would you want to build a hole where everyone was supposed to aim toward the same place?

I don't know. That's why I'm asking the question. I've played a few courses where bunkers appear to be in play just for the purpose of helping the golfer aim. While I appreciate it, it seems like they're not worth the expense.

Those that agree, are you also opposed to some other "helpful" aiming feature, like a chocolate drop or a single bush or tree? Or do you prefer not to add such "comforts" to the golfer?

When aiming bunkers are present and no inside bunkering is in play, this is essentially a dumbing down of the game designed to inflate your ego and make you score better. That's where a golf course and golf course architect loses me.

I'm a strong believer we "generally" need to use less bunkers and have each and every bunker become more important. The aiming bunker is the easiest and simplest place to eliminate first.

I tend to agree.

That's not an aiming bunker.  That was a bunker for the second shot, and probably a good one.  One of the problems I have with the Slope rating system is that bunkers like that are considered non-factors, but they do have a material effect on play.

Right… that's not what I'm calling an "aiming bunker."

Tom, you're not quite correct about slope. Such a bunker is not considered in the scratch course rating (only areas within x yards of the various landing areas are considered), but the bogey course rating considers everything the entire length of the hole. Even a creek 100 yards in front of the tee is considered for the bogey course rating.

The aiming bunkers we are talking about are things like a bunker on the outside of a fairway as it makes a dogleg -- somewhere the B player would never aim for his second shot.  They are all too common in the U.S. on the misguided notion that they help "turn" the dogleg.  I realized from my time in the UK that they were misleading, because in the UK the thinking is the opposite way around -- if you had a bunker to work with, the hole would play closely around it, not away from it.

That's my preference as well.

To my eye, an aiming bunker makes things easier. If you put a bunker on the inside of a dogleg (or to protect a better angle to the green like in my first image), then that is an aiming bunker… in the sense that you have to aim some amount "right" of it (or left), but that amount isn't as clearly defined.

-------

I'm thankful for the discussion this question has generated. I'll repeat the bit above just in case it's missed:

To those that agree, are you also opposed to all "helpful" aiming features, like a chocolate drop or a single bush or tree? Or do you prefer not to add such "comforts" to the golfer?

[Joe Hancock]

Wasn’t there an aiming bunker on High Point, somewhere on the back nine? Was it #11 or #12 maybe?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,


Can't speak for the entire golf world, of course, but in general, many architects use aiming bunkers, trees, mounds, etc. This discussion board seems generally against them, either because they have been over used or because they believe the course ought to be somehow tougher, harder to read, etc.


I have no real problem with them.  They make golfers feel comfortable off the tee, and for the type of courses I design (mostly public) making golfers comfortable is a good thing.  They like it, even up to the pro level.  In fact, I have co-designed with a half dozen pros, and I would be hard pressed to say any of them was against aiming bunkers, and liked them, suggesting them on nearly every hole that didn't have some other feature to aim at.


Sean A seems to have modified a part of the post out that I was going to respond to, but here it is anyway.   IF I have a problem with them, it is that somewhere along the line, I realized it was too easy to do it every time, and like variety on a course.  As Sean suggests, he wishes architects would somehow limit themselves in using them, which I have tried to do.  In a theoretical sense, I have identified a few dozen "basic" tee shot strategies for full length holes.  I need 14 per course, so I try not to repeat any of them, save perhaps repeating one left, one right.


I also like Tom Doak's design strategy of mixing it up.  You might have five target bunkers in a row, and then stick in a hole where aiming at that bunker is the absolute worst thing you could do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik - to answer your specific question, from an average golfer's perspective:

I do appreciate on occasion some directional help in the form of an aiming bunker/mound/tree; but I much prefer if that hazard is also *reachable*.

Both so that I don't feel like the architect is treating me like a baby, and because it's satisfying to see smart & efficient design, I think it's simply and always better if the architect can kill two birds with one stone.

Yes, give me directional help sometimes (as it might be the first and only time I play the course); but at the same time challenge me to make a decision about club selection off the tee, e.g. using a 3 wood instead of driver, or risk ending up in the bunker or on the wrong side of a mound. 

Yes, give me a 'safer' option and identify that option with a tree or bunker -- but if I choose that safer option, then it seems proper that I should have a longer 2nd shot into the green.

An *un-reachable* aiming bunker/tree etc feels fraudulent to me -- as if the architect has intentionally made it *look* like a potential hazard when it's nothing of the sort; and as if the architect thinks us average golfers so easily-mollified that we're happy landing the ball just about *anywhere* just as long as we can hit the ball again.

To paraphrase that old Bernard Darwin observation: a rabbit knows he's a rabbit and not a tiger, but he doesn't want the architect to be so *obvious* in catering to him.

I think a reachable aiming bunker skirts that line very nicely.

Peter

PS - I realized that my post is also from the perspective of someone who doesn't use a range finder.  When I see a hazard out there that even remotely looks like it might be reachable, it gives me something to think about. I suppose if folks use these range/yardage finders, even more so will an unreachable 'directional' hazard be merely that, ie a signpost with no strategic significance.

 

[Thomas Dai]

I had a round at Westward Ho! recently. Thoroughly enjoyable.
Some might regard the course, all 150+ years of it, as flat and featureless although I wouldn't be one. Indeed one of the nicest and enjoyable aspects of playing WH! was trying to figure out targets, irrespective of how far away, and things to aim at taking taking into consideration all the usual factors like wind, terrain, hazards etc. Brain golf? 15th club? Maybe it just takes a while to adjust if you're not used to such courses or such methods of play?
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Wasn’t there an aiming bunker on High Point, somewhere on the back nine? Was it #11 or #12 maybe?

#11 was the par-3.  You may be thinking of #13, which had a bunker at the foot of the hill on the approach to the green, which was kind of on the line for the tee shot.


I have never, as far I can remember, put in a bunker [or any other "built" feature] as an aiming point for the tee shot.  I do sometimes aim holes at distant landmarks [as MacKenzie did] and in most cases I will try to set up the hole so the view to the green, but maybe or maybe not the ideal line for the tee shot, aims right toward them.


Mr. Dye was adamantly opposed to building target bunkers, and a lot of my philosophy goes back to his.  One of the ideas I tried to sneak into the original plan of the Stadium course at PGA West was a hole like the 5th at Royal County Down, with a semi-blind drive over a ridge, and a bunker on the outside of the dogleg that provided some orientation.  Pete shot down that idea right away.  He said there were only two kinds of bunkers on the outside of a dogleg:  one that was within reach, which a Tour pro would never mistake and would therefore aim away from, and one that was not in reach, which just made it easy for them to aim at.


Of course, that's coming from a guy who cut down a 100-year-old oak tree just a couple of days before the PGA Championship at Crooked Stick, because he was concerned it gave the players too much definition on where to aim. 


One reason I am opposed to aiming bunkers is that I have seen way too many of them introduced to classic courses that didn't have such a thing, and they stick out like a sore thumb.  Lorne Rubenstein and I once stopped to walk a course outside Toronto and on the very first tee I asked the green chairman, who put in that target bunker?  I hadn't even seen the course yet, but I knew it was older and suspected the bunker was an addition.  It was from Ron Garl's master plan. 


By coincidence, though, I have noticed in working on Bel Air that George Thomas DID put in target bunkers on occasion.  There's a bunker in back of the 6th green that is clearly there to orient the green, and there was one through the dogleg on the 17th that we are going to reinstate. It looks like there might have been one at the 18th hole, as well, but it was filled in by the early 30's and there are some big trees in its way today, so I'm going to ignore that one.  His drawing of the 8th at Riviera also had a target bunker at the very end of the alternate fairway on the right.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Looks like from Tom's last post, we are defining target bunkers as those out of reach from the tee shot positioned on the outside of the fairway.


If so, I agree that they should rarely be used. However, very occasionally, I might add one because I think it might add significantly to the aesthetic of the hole and more importantly the scale / width of the hole.


I did this on one bunker in Strandhill and in the process of building it realised that it was actually in range for the big hitters downwind and it has ended up very strategic almost by mistake. One of my favourites on the course. Links golf is great.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I guess added length of good players actually makes this concept work a bit better, since the 300+ yard bunkers affect them, but no one else, even considering multiple tees. 


If we can have 40+ wide fairways for most players, but the aiming bunker on the outside of the DL narrows it to 30+ for long hitters, I can see an advantage to that.  In fact, it has been a design tenant  to make the course hard for the good player and easier for the average player as long as I have been an architect.


If combined with some sort of tree on the inside corner ahead of the dogleg, like trees, it can force a certain shot pattern for them, or make them consider a layup.  It may have changed, but 4 at Firestone (while straigthish) did that, as does Augusta 18.  Of course, with the narrow chute, no one could really call those aiming bunkers.


Most good players hate the chute effect, and most will complain about any forced shot pattern, but it is a way for a archie to create shot type demands.

[Mark_Fine]

“Aiming” bunkers are all relative.  What might be an “aiming” bunker for one golfer, might be a “carry” bunker or a “turning” bunker or a bunker for another.  We have to remember that bunkers can all change their purpose/intent depending on wind conditions, temperature, turf firmness, …etc.  Also when a poor shot is hit, a bunker that used to be “out of play” could now be back in play as it might impact the recovery shot.  I played with a college golfer one time in a member guest tourney in Tennessee.  There was a bunker 305 yards off the tee that I called an aiming bunker (at least that is what I aimed at).  He said he aimed at it too, but his intent was to carry it (and he did)

[Tom_Doak]

Well, yes, it's a fact that there are few places you can put a bunker where it's not in play for some segment of golfers nowadays.  If a bunker is far enough downrange to be out of play for long hitters, then it's a second-shot bunker for all the seniors.


I still don't like bunkers on the outside of a dogleg, though, because except in rare circumstances that's not the place a golfer would want to be, anyway.  If you've got a dogleg hole that rewards the golfer who can take an inside line with a better angle to the flag, then putting a bunker on the outside of the hole is helping the long hitter by pushing him back toward the good line.  The best way to mess with such players is to LET THEM hit the ball long down the safe side, and then discover it's the wrong place to be.

[Thomas Dai]

With a bunker on the inside of the DL , thus pushing play away from the best line for the next shot, the option usually exists for the player to hit less club from the tee at the inside DL bunker full in the knowledge that the shot won’t reach the bunker but will most likely still give a good line for the next shot albeit with a slightly longer club.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think we should confuse aiming bunkers with those that play their part on the outside of the dogleg.


Portmarnock has the unusual claim to have many of its highly intelligent holes best approached from the outside of the dogleg and it is the outside only that is bunkered. In fact, on the 8th and 10th, there are no fairway bunkers, just a solitary, cunningly placed greenside bunker on each which works with the green surrounds to mean any approach from the inside is next to impossible. Fantastic golf holes. I consider it the most strategic course in the country.


Strategy comes in all shapes and sizes, especially on links courses.

[Tom_Doak]

With a bunker on the inside of the DL , thus pushing play away from the best line for the next shot, the option usually exists for the player to hit less club from the tee at the inside DL bunker full in the knowledge that the shot won’t reach the bunker but will most likely still give a good line for the next shot albeit with a slightly longer club.

Thomas:


That's what I don't like about the holes Ally just described.  On those, the longer hitter is always advantaged over the short hitter who can't get to the far side of the dogleg.    I don't mind an occasional hole where the outside is favored, for the sake of variety, but if it's done more often than that it is going to beat up the shorter hitter.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Very true, Tom. There's no doubt the inside works better on balance.