A Theory of Bunkering

[archie_struthers]

 




I've got a good one for you armchair architects that fits right into the bunker vs rough analysis.


Philadelphia Country Club in is a beauty of a Flynn, even though its got a lot of competition in Philly to make his top three. The 14th hole has bugged me for years and I've postulated on it more than a few times here. Its a good par four that plays downhill to a fairway that is canted left to right. Now i'm a huge Flynn fan but I hate the elbow bunker on the left side of the fairway in the driving zone. Its big and fairly benign, no lip to speak of and I'd much rather be there than in the rough surrounding it.


More to the point its ugly, breaking the line of charm that runs down the left side all the way to the green. So, its not strategic and its not pretty but it might be original. Once upon a time I thought that the powers that be might listen to my logic as to why it must go! Despite multiple entreaties in various states of sobriety there has been no change to date. Oh well, you are never a prophet in your own land 

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
You mention the “line of charm” in your post and that the bunker you don’t like is in that line of charm.  It has been a while since I played that hole, but maybe that bunker is really in the "line of play" or as Max Behr would say, the “line of instinct”.  He said that “the direct line to the hole is the line of instinct and to make a good hole you must break up that line in order to create the line of charm.  Maybe the bunker is placed well but has been changed in shape or depth or evolved poorly?  Maybe the grassing lines are also wrong.  Hard to know for sure without studying the hole and its evolution. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Mark, I'm of the opinion that this could be one of the beat holes on the golf course with a few little tweaks and one major one, that being bulldozing that bunker. Perhaps one of our guys here can post a photo or google earth image. The beauty of the hole is that it tempts you to play it down the left side if that bunker wasn't there.


This bunker really bugs me for some reason. Again I love Flynn's work, the hole has a fantastic green and the view from the tee would be so much better IMHO if they pulled this one out. Of course this might open up another can of worms as to whether you can pull anything out that the original architect of this quality thought was of value. I even researched old pix of the hole hoping someone other than Flynn had stuck it in there. 

[Kalen Braley]

While I haven't played any of his courses, how do DMKs hairy bumps play for various skill levels?  I know some think they're ugly, but I kind of like the look of them and it seems they would be less maintenance than bunkers...

[Tom_Doak]

While I haven't played any of his courses, how do DMKs hairy bumps play for various skill levels?  I know some think they're ugly, but I kind of like the look of them and it seems they would be less maintenance than bunkers...

I think pretty much all of those were eliminated / mowed down after a year or two of play.


Also, not the sort of feature I would want named after me, as a designer.

[Lou_Duran]

Not a big fan of eyebrows as a player, though the rustic look is appealing when not overdone.  I don't like the double whamy of weeds and natives in bunkers (e.g. the yucca at Prairie Dunes #5) or trees in or on the greenside of fairway bunkers (e.g. Cog Hill 4).


My first exposure to eyebrows was at Texas Star, a wonderful upscale muni designed by Keith Foster.  I played the course in the first weeks of opening with a local architect, years ago when we could still hit the ball.  On the first hole he hits a big drive down the right side of the fairway, clearing a flanking bunker that pinched into the fairway.  Unfortunately, it didn't carry the natives growing outside the greenside lip and though we searched in and all around for five minutes, the ball was lost.  The brows were repeated frequently throughout the course and apparently they caused so much trouble that they NLE.


With my apologies to Bill Vostinak (Redanman) if he happens to look in, I appreciate directional and framing bunkers.  I also like cross bunkers on rises that I can see and easily carry with a good shot- they typically catch my eye and serve to distract, sow doubt, and play tricks on perception (typically making the green or target area closer).  I don't like blind bunkers, especially behind high ground just short of the green (Pete Dye at Long Cove and Stonebridge Ranch).

[Joe Hancock]

It’ll be interesting to hear the feedback once you guys get out to Sheep Ranch next year.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - haven't you been out there? Did I miss it (on here), i.e. a description of the work you've been doing?


I don't think I've ever seen that photo/those bunkers. I like them. I know that the right and proper view is that bunker placement is much more important than bunker appearances, and that's true.  But I think anything that enhances in any way the visual impact/intimidation of a bunker is a very good thing -- always, but especially when the architect gives plenty of room to play safe.
 

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


I have been out there recently, and, no, I didn’t have anything to do with Sheep Ranch.


I think the place is spectacular, as much of the character of its original form has been retained. But, the “bunker” will garner some attention. Some look like abandoned bunkers that have been grassed through, while others are what I describe as “faultline” bunkers....they look like there was a shift in the earth that raised portions of ground that the grass grew over. I like them, but the trick will be to keep the grass from getting too thick and penal. They’ll work great if people can find their golf balls and hit recovery shots. They’re not a lot different than the eyebrows posted, but smaller in scale, generally.


Just as in this thread and some reactions to eyebrows, I suspect the empty shells of bunkers and the faultline bunkers will get mixed reactions because they’re different.

[Matt MacIver]

2)  It seems you build "more difficult than average" bunkers for the weekend joe and they certainly get my attention.  And I don't have a problem with this, if you're gonna put a hazard in place, may as well be such. The most difficult of these as I recall were at Pac Dunes, especially the green side bunkers above the green where you're left with a downhill shot to a green running away from you. For a high capper these are just brutal like the one at 16 PD where it ended as a ESC pickup.

Had a few of these before the renovation, interesting all par 3s and you had to carry water in front so I was in these bunkers a lot. Because there was minimal lip and no rough between the bunker and green I got pretty good at putting out of them.  Guess I should have practiced the “proper” shot but I enjoyed the other challenge.


Post- renovation, big lips and rough so no more putter. Sigh.


I agree that the downhill shot out of a bunker is particularly difficult for poorer golfers -- and for me, personally.  For that reason I have usually minimized building them.  Pacific Dunes probably has the most of any of my courses, because I was going for the full MacKenzie look, and he loved those bunkers behind the green.

[Mike_Young]

Bunker maintenance today makes it where the main reason for bunkers is contrast in color.  If sand were green we would all see bunkering in a different light...short grass allows a short side shot to run out, a bunker stops it...JMO

[Thomas Dai]

Bunker maintenance today makes it where the main reason for bunkers is contrast in color.  If sand were green we would all see bunkering in a different light...short grass allows a short side shot to run out, a bunker stops it...JMO

The game seems to be more and more about ‘the look’ and less and less about ‘the golf’ these days. Makes rural and rustic courses ever more appealing (at least to some of us).
Atb

[Sean_A]

ATB

The look of bunkers is important, but not a deal breaker.

My general theory of bunkering is short and sharp

1. FEW bunkers

2. FORCEFULLY placed

3. FIERCE in terms of difficulty and looks

Happy Hockey

[Ally Mcintosh]

ATB

The look of bunkers is important, but not a deal breaker.

My general theory of bunkering is short and sharp

1. FEW bunkers

2. FORCEFULLY placed

3. FIERCE in terms of difficulty and looks

Happy Hockey

I’ll go with the first two on the proviso on No.1 that you still provide the “right” amount of bunkers to assist the hole’s strategy.


Not so gone on No.3 though. I like fierce in difficulty (to make people avoid them) although I like variety in difficulty and you have to consider that some members really cannot get out of them at all - end of round in stroke play.


Fierce in terms of looks certainly sometimes. But again, I prefer them not forced in to your face and am quite fond of the difficult bunker that sits subtly - sometimes innocuously - on to the landscape.


But I’m guessing you would agree?

[Sean_A]

Ally

Sure, it's just a general guideline and there is always room for exceptions...check that, exceptions are necessary.

I guess my angle is if the bunker isn't attractive and difficult, there may well be a better alternative. Living in GB&I with nearly all the best courses on good soils and turf, it's easy to forget how awkward sand can for the vast majority sites. Of course, these days, with maintenance costs unnecessarily ramped up in pursuit of playing perfection and attractiveness, even bunkers on sensible sites has to be questioned. It doesn't look as though costly maintenance trend will soon end. The obvious alternatives are artificial solutions which hold up better over time, accept less pristine bunkers or employ fewer bunkers. I personally would opt for fewer and more fierce (less maintained) bunkers. But then I find the less maintained bunkers far more attractive than the ultimate counterpart if Muirfield bunkers. In fact, in a very real way, Muirfield is the opposite of where I think courses should be heading. In that regard it isn't too different from Augusta.

Happy Hockey

[Thomas Dai]

The rule changes introduced last year could have had a considerable effect on all aspects of bunkering. However, the rule authorities decided to introduce a 2-shot penalty should a player wish to drop out of bunker.
With a 2-shot penalty players are more likely to give a shot a go, whereas only a 1-shot penalty ought to change a players thinking, which then has other implications for bunkering in general.
If they had made this a 1-stroke penalty, ie the same penalty as dropping out of other hazards, then a variety of possibilities would exist with regard to bunkering - possibilities with regard to maintenance, cost, playability, strategy, speed of play, excitement, temptation, options, scoring etc. A poor show and a flunked opportunity by the authorities imo, one that they should amend.
Atb

[archie_struthers]

 




Thomas that's a great point about the penalty being two shots was silly. If it was one you are correct that it would have a much greater impact !

[Kyle Harris]

The rule changes introduced last year could have had a considerable effect on all aspects of bunkering. However, the rule authorities decided to introduce a 2-shot penalty should a player wish to drop out of bunker.
With a 2-shot penalty players are more likely to give a shot a go, whereas only a 1-shot penalty ought to change a players thinking, which then has other implications for bunkering in general.
If they had made this a 1-stroke penalty, ie the same penalty as dropping out of other hazards, then a variety of possibilities would exist with regard to bunkering - possibilities with regard to maintenance, cost, playability, strategy, speed of play, excitement, temptation, options, scoring etc. A poor show and a flunked opportunity by the authorities imo, one that they should amend.
Atb

Disagree.


A bunkered ball and a ball within a penalty area are not like situations.

• “The question of bunkers is a big one and the very best school for study we have found is along the seacoast among the dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape. The criticism had been made that we have made them too easy, that the banks are too sloping and that a man may often play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker where he should be forced to use a niblick. This opens a pretty big subject and we know that the tendency is to make bunkers more difficult. In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy; the only exception being where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or similar substance to keep the same from blowing. This had made a perfectly straight wall but was not done with the intention of making it difficult to get out but merely to retain the bunker as it exists. If we make the banks of every bunker so steep that the very best player is forced to use a niblick to get out and the only hope he has when he gets in is to be able to get his ball on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule as we have at present with water hazards, when a man may, if he so desires, drop back with the loss of a stroke. I thoroughly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out of them and that the best and worst must use a niblick.”

• -Hugh Wilson, 1916

[Thomas Dai]

Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb

[Kyle Harris]

Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb

One may take an unplayable lie in that situation but in doing so must remain in the bunker. This is a like situation being treated alike without removing the condition of the bunker.

If the embedded ball is above the margin of the bunker, the player is not in the bunker.

[archie_struthers]

 


Kyle has a point re: taking a drop within the bunker. My thought remains that two shots will be too much penalty. Better to have left the rule unchanged.

[archie_struthers]

 


Kyle you must know the 14th hole at Philly CC. Whats your thought on that bunker on the left side in the driving area. It's an itch that won't go away lol

[Tom_Doak]

Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb

If the embedded ball is above the margin of the bunker, the player is not in the bunker.

Wait - I had that situation this year, playing at Tara Iti (17th hole).


Once the ball embeds under & above the lip, what are my options?


Also, technically there are no bunkers at Tara Iti anyway- all the sand is through the green (or whatever it's called now - sigh).

[Thomas Dai]

Not convinced. Embedded ball is of course a different matter.

What about a physically weak or less skilled player who doesn’t have the strength or skill to extract the ball and thus has repeated efforts at doing so whilst holding up his/her playing partners and the group behind and also becoming frustrated with golf? A good or bad aspect of the game?
Atb

[Sean_A]

I agree with David. A 1shot penalty drop situation makes it a reasonable and fun risk should one fail to carry some horrible pit of doom. A rule such as this would, I believe, give more archies a free hand at designing harsher bunkers. Plus, treating all penalty areas the same makes sense and rightly simplifies rules. As the rules are now, it is difficult to understand why a bunker dishes out a worse penalty than a lost or OOB ball.

Happy Hockey