News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Shared bunkers?
« on: October 28, 2003, 07:16:15 AM »
A design feature you see from time to time is "shared bunkers" on parallel holes.  As you know, these are bunkers that provide a purpose on more than one hole.  During a restoration process, one of the main challenges is to try to restore original design intent.  To bring most fairway bunkers back into play, an architect will offen try to first move back the tees and if that is not possible, he'll then consider relocation of the bunkers.  Relocating "shared bunkers" is a different matter.  

Anyone seen some examples of how you've seen this issue addressed?
Mark

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2003, 08:09:15 AM »
Mark- I haven't seen any restoring issues but just off the top of my head it seems that going bigger, in a lateral sense, would solve the "perceived' problem.

TEPaul

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2003, 08:28:06 AM »
Generally, where I've seen real 'shared bunkering' it exists on some of the very old courses, particularly some very early Ross courses that happened to be on limited and very tight property.

There're a number of problems with addressing what to do about those shared bunkers today if one is looking to restore the way they used to play. Basically most of the old courses that had shared bunkering had it in the open originally but in almost every case today those parallel holes are dilineated by trees and dense tree-liniing and almost always right in the middle of that shared bunkering.

LuLu, Ross's first course in Pa, is a really good example of that. To restore that bunkering to complete play and functionality will be almost impossible though. One really can't expect the club to clear cut all that tree-lining due to the realiities of modern liability and danger.

The only way to deal with it, in my opinion, is to try to cut back on both parallel holes some of the tree lining (narrow it basically) and perhaps extend those shared bunkers out on both parallels holes instead of just obsoleting them and reforming them as separate bunkers (unshared on both holes).

Then there gets to be problems regarding proper distance placement on either hole if there's no tee length elasticity on both those parallel holes or actually even if the tee length elasticity is not the same on both parallel holes--that of course assuming that the shared bunkering was designed as tee shot bunkering on both holes as is mostly the case at LuLu.

The reality is that trying to restore shared bunkering on those old courses on parallel holes probably just isn't very feasible today.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2003, 08:31:01 AM by TEPaul »

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2003, 08:43:58 AM »
Take a look at Shackelford's Golden Age book:  did that parallel hole drawing by HSC ever get built?  Interesting shared bunker arrangement. Anyone know that course (the drawing is taken from an ad)?
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

GeoffreyC

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2003, 09:07:25 AM »
Mark

Fenway has a few shared fairway bunkers that border holes 3 (par 4) and 5 (long par 4)



as well as a shared bunker complex at the greensite of holes 8 (short par 4) and 12 (long par 4)





Gil Hanse did a great job of highlighting these features when he restored the course a few years ago.

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2003, 09:25:03 AM »
Shiv- You been up to Greenlake yet? I assume you are talking about the diagonal, almost cross bunkering/ridge complexes?

TeP- There's a newer course with a great use example. Wild Horse has a massive shared blowout prinicples nosey kind of thing between the 2nd and 3rd holes. What makes single complex work so well, is undoubtedly the wind.

Mark Studer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2003, 09:32:16 AM »
Mark F- We had the issue you describe with the church pew(drive zone left on #3 &#4) bunker at Oakmont.  We ended up lenghtening the tee on 4 and have not altered the bunker. An additional bunker pew was added toward 3 green and 4 tee between 1969 and 1973(documented by dated photos). The bunker is perfectly placed to catch pulled or hooked tee shots from either  3 or 4 teeing ground.The  church pew bunker is counted as only one of the over 180 on the course. In lenghening  the 4th hole, we kept the pews in the drive zone, AND kept the distance challenging for  the par 5 4th. Lengthening  #3 to do the same  for that hole is on the drawing board for the '07 Open. What is more architecturally significant ----the teeing ground or the bunker complex....???  Mark
The First Tee:Golf Lessons/Life Lessons

Dunlop_White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2003, 09:38:35 AM »
Mark,

Yes, I see the shared bunker situation quite often and Tom Paul is correct, they were often utilized on some of the early Ross courses, at least in North Carolina. I have also seen Perry Maxwell use the shared bunker feature at Old Town Club, probably just a replicated design feature from The Old Course which he so admired.

In every instance, whether the bunker was a shared feature on parallel holes running in the same direction or parallel holes running in different directions, the land used was open and barren. Most always, however, the parallel holes were maintained as one big large fairway and the bunker placement coincided with landforms running along the center of play. In this instance, don't move the shared bunker away from its natural landform. This would compromise the two holes. Instead, move the tees to bring these landforms back into play.

I've also seen them used strategically in this manner...... Placing shared bunkers between two fairways where the preferred safe route to the hole required you to play along the outside lines of the parallel holes away from the inner bunkers. This being the case, the subsequent trees which have since divided these holes and camouflaged these bunkers actually serve little safety purpose since most golfers actually played out wide and away and not along the riskier inside line.

Many shared bunkers though, I have noticed, did not even strategically come into play even by classical standards of length. Some, I've noticed, were 100 yards off the tee on one hole moving North and the same shared bunker would be 270 yards from the tee on the adjacent hole moving South. I think at times shared bunkers were merely used to psycologically separate and establish the corridors of play visually.  In this sence, it is not necessary to move back the tees or the bunker.

Hope all is well.

Dunlop


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2003, 09:44:41 AM »
Adam,
Making the bunkers bigger is one idea but in a situation where you are already dealing with huge shared bunkes, that is not a viable option.

Bill,
Regarding the lost shared bunkers at Lehigh - do you know why Forse kept them "lost" and decided not to restore them?

Tom,
I very much agree with you about the tree issue.  And believe me, you see this on more than just Ross courses with shared bunkers.  The real problem comes when you don't have teeing ground elasticity.  

Geoffrey,
The shared greenside bunkers are much easier to deal with.  It's the ones shared in the fairway that create issues.  Regarding Fenway, do you know the story behind those shared bunkers on holes #3 and #5?  Did Gil "create" those bunkers or restore what was originally there?  How did he address the distance from the tee issue on the two holes?  They might have been easier to deal with given #3 is a par five and #5 is a par four and the landing areas are different.  I know he moved some bunkers down the fairway like on #10 but I'm not sure what he did on #3 and #5?  It would be interesting to find out as I thought they looked great.  

Dave,
I know the bunker complex you are talking about at Skokie on the two par fives.  Help me though, were the tees extended?  How did he bring it into play for both holes or is it really now just more penal for the weaker golfer?  

Mark

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2003, 09:55:56 AM »
Mark,
I agree with you, the teeing ground is generally less significant than the location of the bunker complex.  If at all possible, I advocate moving tees back first.  The problem comes when you can't move back the tees.  What would you have done if you couldn't lengthen the tee on #4?

Dunlop,
I agree these shared bunkers were often used for separation.  However, many were also there for strategy and their in lies the problem when elasticity of the teeing ground is not possible.  It those shared hazards provide the primary strategy for the golf holes and they are now mostly out of play, now you have a dilema if you are trying to restore the original design?  Sometimes these shared bunkers are massive and true works of art.

Mark  



GeoffreyC

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2003, 09:57:27 AM »
Mark

Agreed about the obvious differences in sharing bunkers when they are greenside vs. fairway.

As far as I am aware, Gil did a "pure restoration" at Fenway going to great lengths along with Steve Frankel to research the original plans and photos. There was, however, some lengthening of holes and #5 was one of these.  Always a long par 4 of some 450 yards, an extended back tee (along the same line of play) makes the hole play some 480-485 yards and back hole locations can stretch it to about 500! The bunkers are in play for both holes.  This past year the club did move the small bunker complex at the inside of the dogleg on #5 out by some 40 yards to put them in play for very long hitters.  I don't like this move at all as they now stick out like unnatural features whereas before they were in a  perfect spot.

This cluster at the inside of the dogleg on #5 were moved some 40 yards past the turn of the hole and made a bit shallower.


The bunkers you refer to on #10 were originals recovered by Gil and restored in their proper location (as far as I know).
« Last Edit: October 28, 2003, 10:01:45 AM by Geoffrey Childs »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2003, 10:14:49 AM »
Geoffrey,
We need to check into a few of these things to clarify.  I'm not 100% sure either but it sounds like Gil had room to move back some tees which makes things much easier to deal with.  I am pretty confident the bunkers on #10 were moved down the fairway but I could be wrong.
Mark

TEPaul

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2003, 11:06:17 AM »
Mark Studer:

It occured to me about 15 years ago (even before I got interested in golf course architecture) that you couldn't have more perfect "shared bunkering" on parallel holes than the real church pews of Oakmont between #3 and #4. Why? Simply because of the unique way the church pews are formed! I mean the look and playbility of them is something like one of those VWs or old Renaults where you couldn't tell which was the front or the back or whether it was coming at you in forward or reverse!  ;)  

Basically because of the way that "church pew" concept is  constructed they work perfectly and the same way both ways! That ain't easy to do in bunkering without having them flat or boring or completely non-penal. It would seem to me the basic "church pew" design and style is the only way to acheive that with the faces in the middle of the sand!

You got the tee length now on #4 to keep the church pews relevant on that tee shot (although the ground back there sure wasn't ideal for that purpose--would a little tree planting back there alleviate that drop-off maybe?  ;)  ) but doing the same on #3 tee will be interesting. How exactly are you going to pick up enough tee length back there? It seems to me #2 green is pretty close behind #3 tee and to the right is that hedge that runs behind #2 and along #3.

Maybe you guys can kill two birds with one stone. First of all I saw a young kid in the Pa amateur who hit a perfect iron off #2 tee hit a perfect wedge that was a little too perfect right over the flag, over the green and into that hedge and lose his ball. He wasn't even aware of it until he got up there and when he finally came back he said he couldn't remember ever losing a ball with a wedge that was merely a bit too well hit! I don't think you want that to happen in the Open and it proabably will with that hedge so close behind #2 green. It wasn't until that instance that I realized you guys even owned the land behind #2 and to the right of #3 and that it's your other course back there!

What hole is it behind that #2 green on that other course of yours and how close is it to that hedge on the other side? Never mind answering that--who cares? Now's the time to nab some of that land (even if in the middle of the night) for additional tee space on #3.

Remember when we stood there and saw that long hitting little snip of a guy Jon Rusk hit that big hook off the tips on #3 tee clean over the church pews and into the beginning of #4 fairway with probably not much more than a nine iron into #3 green from there? And I said the only thing that will stop that kind of nonsense is for you to leave those big trees on the left about 120+ yds from the 3rd green? Well, if you guys nab back some of your own land from that other course you'll get the necessary elasticity on #3 tee where guys like Rusk and those longer won't be able to fly the church pews! And the extra good news to you will be that then and only then will you have every reason to murder those trees up on the left near #3 green beause they'll no longer be necessary to create a problem for someone who flies the church pews off #3 long and way left.

TEPaul

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2003, 11:15:01 AM »
"Bill,
Regarding the lost shared bunkers at Lehigh - do you know why Forse kept them "lost" and decided not to restore them?"

Mark:

If redanman does know why Forse decided to keep those Lehigh bunkers "lost" and not to restore them and that reason had anything whatsoever to do with trees I'm fairly certain that redanman wouldn't care about Ron's reasons. When it comes to trees on golf courses redanman's basic policy is to cut them all down first and then ask what the consequences of not having them may be!  ;)


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2003, 08:51:44 PM »
Tom,
I hope the reason wasn't trees but it wouldn't surprise me.  At some point I'll be able to post pictures and show some examples of amazing shared bunkers (not at Lehigh) that are now grassed over and lost in the rough.  They are also mostly out of play except for the weaker golfer.  
Mark
« Last Edit: October 28, 2003, 08:52:39 PM by Mark_Fine »

ian

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2003, 09:51:27 PM »
This is Peteborough Golf Club, by Stanley Thompson. The first picture is the original fairway bunker on the long four 15th. The bunker was removed a long time back (god knows why)


The second picture is looking accross the 17th green, a short par five. The left greenside bnker runs accross to the 15th fairway bunker.


The trees between the holes were cleared out where the bunker was. The trees on either side were left for safety.

To explain, the only other Thompson example I knew at that time was at Banff. Thompson had twice cleared the entire tree line between holes and bunkered the whole thing to add a great deal of drama to both holes.

When I saw this originally, there was only one small strip bunker on the left of 17. This bunker was a great deal of fun to bring back.

Willie Park Jr. did them a lot at Illesmere in Montreal. Some have trees between the bunkers. The club is not interested inrestoring them due to the safety (and the ten members chained to each tree). Montreal is the tree hugging capitol of Golf.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2003, 09:51:48 PM by Ian Andrew »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2003, 09:43:13 AM »
Ian,
Great pictures.  Not sure where that shared bunker sits in relation to shots played on the #15 hole?  It is still "strategically" in play or now just eye candy, or just penal for weaker golfers?  The question I have is if that shared bunker was no longer in play, what options would you consider to restore the original design intent of the golf hole (assuming you can't move back the tee)?  
Mark

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2003, 10:11:06 AM »
MarkF- I see the problem with going big and its quite appropriate that Mark Studer chimed in, because I felt the alternative to making them larger, would be to section them giving a church pew look. I would have to think that its quite case specific but as long as their(the bunkers) intention is clear, making cosmetic changes can be justified by restoring their importance.

But I know nada

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2003, 10:17:53 AM »
Royce Brook West in NJ has a "field" of bunkers which you can slice into from either #1 or #9.

Doesn't 14 & 15 @ Sand Hills share a bunker on the right side of each hole?
Integrity in the moment of choice

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2003, 10:37:36 AM »
John - that "field" of bunkers is so large that I think I could slice into it from downtown manhattan. extraneous is the word, I think.

there is a good one at SLCC, that, as I understand it, used to be a lot bigger and more prominent on each of the holes. can't remember what holes, though.

Inverness also has a couple.

Hollywood has one or two (or 40) that used to be more prominent.

I think, as a general observation, they used to be more prevalent. Perhaps a function of necessity, i.e. if you're going to dig a bunker, why not conquer two birds with one stone?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2003, 10:41:16 AM by SPDB »

TEPaul

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2003, 10:40:09 AM »
One of the best examples of bunkering that looks shared but isn't appears at the brand new Stonewall2. When you tee off on hole #11 there's a short bunker that sits on the right of the beginning of the fairway. The par 3 17th hole is to the right. But when you come around to the 17th hole you could swear that same bunker is part of the bunker complex surrounding the 17th green. But when you walk off the 17th green back across the front of #11 and across the road to #18 tee you can see again that it isn't at all. And this deceptive look of shaing that bunker was apparently no accident either!

Mark Studer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2003, 11:08:55 AM »
TEP- You are 100% correct about killing two birds with one stone(and maybe a couple more pin oaks ) when you describe moving the fence back behind #2 further toward the east course clubhouse. As you know we have very little cart traffic(20 on the property for the over 75 set...,hope WE make it to use them too!),but we can pick up about 30 yards behind the 2nd green to move traffic BEHIND 2 green to 3 tee instead of the current route to the front and left of 2 green. The bonus is now a new place has been cleared for possibly lengthening the 3rd hole to make sure the pews in the 3rd hole drive zone are in play for pulled or hooked tee shots. You correctly point out that BIG tee shots can clear the pews from the existing back teeing ground. We can add 40 yards(without any additional elevation) to the 3rd hole and that should do it for '07. The pew bunkers could remain intact and they will have to play more than an 8 iron to that wonderful runaway green. -Mark.......Tom, moving cart traffic to the far side of tees keeps them out of view for walkers and can be used for maintenance vehicle traffic as well.  I noticed a few good opportunities at Beverly to do this path moving thing during their restoration. We have done it at Oakmont on 2,7,8,13,&16 over the last 10 years.  Walkers no longer need to see (for the most part) or walk on paths on those holes.
The First Tee:Golf Lessons/Life Lessons

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2003, 11:25:40 AM »
Mark S,
I should look again at your posts in case I missed it, but what would you do with those shared bunkers if you couldn't move back the tees?
Mark

Mark Studer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2003, 11:34:29 AM »
Mark F- We would problably do what Fownes did for 47 years......get those bunkers in  the drive zone for the best players.  Lucky for us , we have the property to do it by lengthening these holes. It is a real  problem when you have to recreate the old bunker in a new location but moving bunkers sure beats having the majority of hazards in play for the average player and not challenging the best.  What do you think you would do ? Mark
The First Tee:Golf Lessons/Life Lessons

TEPaul

Re:Shared bunkers?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2003, 11:48:38 AM »
You want to see a guy's face light up? You should see MarkS's face light up when the subject turns to what to do with trees that have been planted since William Fownes checked out?! It's somewhat comparable to what W.C. Fields felt should be done with children and small dogs!  ;)

Unfortunately, for trees you can't just throw them out the door like small dogs or make them go to their room like children!
« Last Edit: October 29, 2003, 11:53:20 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back