[Tommy Williamsen]

Are there any recently built deep bunkers that have been named like “Hell” or “Cape”?

[Tom_Doak]

My crew and I have had names for quite a few bunkers we have built over the years.  I think every bunker at Pacific Dunes had a name, though I don't remember many of them now . . . they are all in the draft of the book I was writing about it, though.


I think the best name was for the back bunker at 16, which was named for Josh Lesnik.  It's the Josh Pit.


My other favorite was the deep pot bunker behind #7 at High Pointe.  When he first saw it, the local pro Doug Grove asked me whether it was an abandoned well, so that was my name for it.

[Carl Rogers]

The fw bunker shot is one where the plus golfer has huge advantage over the rest of us.  They can hit the ball higher, farther and much much more consistently.


An additional fw bunker discussion would be location of such bunkers off the tee (which tee) and how far from the green.


How deep are fw bunkers on Riviera No. 10?


Yes, I support the notion that some bunkers should be avoided at all costs.

[Tom_Doak]

How deep are fw bunkers on Riviera No. 10?

They are shallow.  Which makes perfect sense, since they are all within 80-100 yards of the green, and it would be ridiculous to build a bunker such that you couldn't advance it that far. 

[Tom_Doak]

I agree on the temptation factor TD discusses.  I think the most tempting recover would be if you might have an option to reach the green, but on longer holes, options just to advance it far enough to make the third easier would also work.  If a wedge left 180 or more, you would surely be thinking in terms of how far you could hit it.  If you had only 120 left, a thinking golfer would make the safe play, I think.

Jeff:


One of the reasons I agree with you on this was that I was at Troon for The Open in 1982.

You may not remember, but I remember vividly that was the year that Bobby Clampett was -11 after two rounds and five shots clear of the field.  He'd made two more birdies and was leading by seven before the par-5 sixth hole on Saturday, where he drove into a fairway bunker.

(2)  Instead of taking his medicine, he tried to hit 8-iron or something out of the bunker so he would still have a chance to get to the green in three.  He hit the lip, and went into the next fairway bunker. 

(3)  Made the same mistake from THAT bunker, hit the lip again, and left himself 250 yards to go. 

(4)  Tried for the green from there, yanked it badly left.

(5)  Tried to get it close to the hole, left his shot short, in the left greenside bunker.

(6-7-8)  Recovery and two putts.  He had gone from -13 back to -10.

He wound up at even par, tied for 10th place.  And I'd learned something about bunkers!

[Mark_Fine]

I think temptation is one of the most important design aspects that architects can incorporate into their layouts.  Here is a good example.  There used to be a series of moguls on the right of par five 15th at Augusta National.  I remember when they took them out and planted pine trees in there place necking down the fairway to tight chute I recall standing there thinking what a missed opportunity that was!  Sure they made the hole harder, but they didn’t make it better.  Who wants to see the pros pitch the ball out sideways from under the trees 230 or 240 yards from the green so they can safely wedge a third shot on and still make birdie.  That area would have been a perfect spot to build a large "Mackenzie style bunker" (it would even be shared with #17 and enhance that hole as well).  Now the pros who miss right on #15 with their tee shot would be left with a 220-250 yard down hill shot from the bunker.  Almost every one of them is capable of hitting that shot to the green (depending on the lie and where you ended up in the bunker) and it would hurt their ego to layup instead knowing they could pull that shot off.  That “temptation” to make that shot would be there (that hole is all about temptation) and it would make that hole even better than it is now.  It would require a decision and that is what temptation (and many great holes) are all about.  This would be a bunker that you wouldn’t want too deep otherwise the temptation would be lost and would only serve as a penal hazard just like the trees.  Once again, it is all about variety but in this case shallower would be the better option. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Dealing with temptation is the stuff of life. On the golf course hitting the heroic shot gives us the opportunity to be exceptional. Bobby Clampett just missed on his first try out of the bunker. "Got to try it again," says the tempter. How do you resist?

[Tom_Doak]

I think temptation is one of the most important design aspects that architects can incorporate into their layouts.  Here is a good example.  There used to be a series of moguls on the right of par five 15th at Augusta National.  I remember when they took them out and planted pine trees in there place necking down the fairway to tight chute I recall standing there thinking what a missed opportunity that was!  Sure they made the hole harder, but they didn’t make it better.  Who wants to see the pros pitch the ball out sideways from under the trees 230 or 240 yards from the green so they can safely wedge a third shot on and still make birdie.  That area would have been a perfect spot to build a large "Mackenzie style bunker" (it would even be shared with #17 and enhance that hole as well).  Now the pros who miss right on #15 with their tee shot would be left with a 220-250 yard down hill shot from the bunker.  Almost every one of them is capable of hitting that shot to the green (depending on the lie and where you ended up in the bunker) and it would hurt their ego to layup instead knowing they could pull that shot off.  That “temptation” to make that shot would be there (that hole is all about temptation) and it would make that hole even better than it is now.  It would require a decision and that is what temptation (and many great holes) are all about.  This would be a bunker that you wouldn’t want too deep otherwise the temptation would be lost and would only serve as a penal hazard just like the trees.  Once again, it is all about variety but in this case shallower would be the better option. 

Yeah, building "MacKenzie style bunkers" in places MacKenzie never put a bunker is how places like Bel Air wound up needing a $9m restoration.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You and I both know that course is soooo changed from what was once there why not at least make it better if you are going to change it anyway. Mackenzie sure didn’t plant trees in that spot.  If you think trees there are a better option than the bunker I proposed or you prefer that rolly polly mounding that RTJ I believe put in, then you are losing some credibility in my mind.  Augusta is NOT a restoration candidate - sorry.
Mark


Note: if I am not mistake the only Mackenzie style bunker left on the course is the fairway bunker on #10 which used to be green side till they relocated the green farther down the hill.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
You and I both know that course is soooo changed from what was once there why not at least make it better if you are going to change it anyway. Mackenzie sure didn’t plant trees in that spot.  If you think trees there are a better option than the bunker I proposed or you prefer that rolly polly mounding that RTJ I believe put in, then you are losing some credibility in my mind.  Augusta is NOT a restoration candidate - sorry.
Mark


Note: if I am not mistake the only Mackenzie style bunker left on the course is the fairway bunker on #10 which used to be green side till they relocated the green farther down the hill.

I would not propose that Augusta restore their golf course.  And they're not going to hire me, anyway.  Or you!  So any discussion of what they should do is strictly grandstanding for the crowd.


But the mealy-mouthed "[insert architect] style bunker" master plans are what have caused so many other courses which DON'T host a major championship to lose their way.


P.S.  The bunkers around the back of the green on #13 are vintage MacKenzie, even if they have been rebuilt a few times.  But those are the only other ones I can think of that have any of MacKenzie's DNA left.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
We can take out the “insert architect” style bunker but you have to agree that a bunker in that area would be a much better option.  The trees there that have been added also block some great long range views across the property back up to the clubhouse.  They were a poor addition.  That is my opinion and I am sticking to it 


And yes I agree about architect’s coming in and doing their own thing and messing up golf courses. It is the main reason I am so busy with projects 😊. If you knew what I do which you should, I am far more of a restoration guy than most. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I can't honestly say I'd ever considered the argument that a bunker that's too deep actually lessens the temptation/decision-making involved. But that said, I think I can see how that argument ends -- or, at least, how that argument did end at dozens of courses I've played over the years:

"Let's make this fairway bunker deep, quite deep, but not so deep that the golfer immediately knows he can't get a long iron out and to the green, and so automatically lays up or pitches out sideways instead".
-- "Great point there, GB! We always want to give golfers options and choices! Okay, deep but not too deep. I'll get right on it".
"Wait!".
-- "Yes, GB?"
"On the other hand: if the bunker is a deep one, and even if it's not too deep, the good player might be tempted to hit a mid or long iron out of there, but the mid-to-high handicapper will just have to pitch out sideways all the time anyway". 
-- "I think I see where you're going with this".
"Do you see what I mean?"
[Pause]
-- "Actually, ah, no, I don't."
"Look: it will be just another example of the already better golfer having even more of an advantage over the weaker golfer."
-- "Oh, I think I get it, yes".
"It'll be the same as holes that are too long, or greens that are too small. A deep but not too deep bunker can be handled by the low handicapper but not by the higher handicapper. For him there'll be no choice or option at all".
-- "You're right, GB! Why didn't I see that myself?! What happens then is that the 'course isn't playable by all'".
"That's right".
-- "Oh, that would be terrible, just terrible! Didn't the great Dr Mackenzie himself say that a good golf course has to be playable by all?"
[Pause]
"So. What to do? What to do?"
[Pause]
-- "GB, I may have an idea. If you don't mind, I mean, I'll just toss it out there for whatever it's worth".
"Go ahead".
-- "Well: how about a bunker that is 'deep', but not only is it not too deep, it's also 'not actually deep at all'?"
[Pause]
"You mean: a 'shallow' fairway bunker?"
-- "Ah, not quite: I didn't explain myself very well. I don't necessarily mean a 'shallow' bunker, necessarily. I mean a deep bunker that is not, actually, in reality, very much or so much deep at all, or even 'deep' -- as the concept is normally understood".
"Hmm. You mean: a 'not deep at all' deep bunker"?
-- "Yes, exactly! You said it perfectly! A deep bunker that is not in any way at all, nor could ever be defined as being, 'deep' -- in the conventional way the word is usually used, by non golf architects and their ilk."
[Pause]
"Okay. Okay, I can see that. Let's try that. Let's give it a shot. We'll see how it works".
-- "I'm right on it, GB! This is going to be great, I know it!"
   

[Sean_A]

Interesting.  I mentioned bunkers that may have to be raised for drainage, don't think I had heard of one that had to be deeper for drainage.

I agree on the temptation factor TD discusses.  I think the most tempting recover would be if you might have an option to reach the green, but on longer holes, options just to advance it far enough to make the third easier would also work.  If a wedge left 180 or more, you would surely be thinking in terms of how far you could hit it.  If you had only 120 left, a thinking golfer would make the safe play, I think.

Who has the option to go for the green and from what distance?

Remember I am a guy who doesn't buy all the nonsense about it being better to make greenside bunkers deeper than fairway bunkers.

If archies would stop littering courses with bunkers every chance they get, this conversation wouldn't exist.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

If fairway bunkers had a line painted around them or stakes surrounding them and were called 'Penalty areas' would this change the way players played a hole? Thoughts?
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
We are in agreement that architects sometimes use too many unnecessary bunkers.  However, bunkers are part of the game and are one of the prime hazards that make sense on most golf courses.  We are just finishing up a renovation where we took the number of bunkers down by 25% from what was there and made the course much better, more interesting, and with less maintenance in the process.  But some bunkers were still necessary and appropriate. 


I gave an example above (Tom Doak didn’t like it but that is because it wasn’t his idea  ).  Would you prefer trees or those silly moguls there instead or just no hazard at all?  I am not sure what was there originally but at this point does it matter? We all know the hole.  We have all seen it on TV and/or walked the course many times.  You don’t like bunkers.  What would you do because what they did there is not great.  And to stay on topic, it shouldn’t be a very deep bunker but one that provides temptation as the golfer knows they still might have a shot to reach the green in two. 

[Sean_A]

It isn't the case that I dislike bunkers. Of course I like bunkers, in moderation. I am just as interested in the land being shaped to create interest just as is done to greens. Far too much discussion, money and time is spent on how bunkers look rather than their placement and relationship with other features. It's a tired way of seeing architecture whose time should be long gone. Unfortunately, it seems more and more that bunkers are about visuals even at the expense of good grass lines, tree management and drainage improvement. It's crazy.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


The basically crappy state of the golf biz is making your wish come true.  When I entered the biz in 1977, every bunker had to really be necessary.  By the 90's, with everyone looking for awards (or great aesthetics for adjacent home lots) it was "bonkers for bunkers" era.  Now, as I mentioned earlier, many of us are making a living on bunker reduction plans.


Not everyone may have the same experience, but my "standard plug number" for budget as at least 100K SF back then.  Now, it's 50-85K maybe.


When called in to reduce bunkers on one of my own courses, I make the point that I am glad to do it within reason.  Some superintendents want them all gone, of course.  And, I tend to apply the "does it serve multiple functions" theory to the ones I keep. 
Big bunkers always get reduced, like those long strip angled "Cape style" ones.  And, if you run some math for carry distances from various tees, you find the first 40 yards are probably visual fluff anyway.  Ditto with long strip bunkers extending way in front of greens, or big bunkers, where they note that the outer half or third never sees a ball in them.


Just my experience.  Average bunkering is probably the historic norm, the 90's was probably an aberration, at least for the lower 99% of courses.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jeff, why do courses want bunkers removed? I'll bet that most of the time it isn't about playability but about economics. Bunkers cost a lot of money to maintain. T[size=78%]hey tend to wash out after a downpour, need to be edged (even ragged edged bunkers need some edging), and raked. For twelve years I belonged to F[/size][/size][size=78%]our Streams, a Steve Smyers course outside DC. Smyers is not shy about the use of bunkers. To be sure there was some grumbling about some of the bunkers but I can't think of any bunkers I wasn't in at sometime. [/size]

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
If you have been in every bunker on as Steven Smyers course I would be shocked     That would be amazingly hard feat to pull off! 


Bunkers are being removed at many courses not just for maintenance purposes.  It is also because they simply aren’t needed and are superfluous.  I just played a “name architect” course (before the world shut down) and you could take out 50 bunkers and hardly anyone would notice (except maybe the golfers who top shots all the time or who hit is sideways a lot).  Those are the players that are having enough trouble playing the game.  Why punish them even more.   


Sean,
You didn’t answer my question about #15 at Augusta?  You know the hole well enough to at least offer some opinion on what is there vs what might be a better option.  We are critical on this site all the time about golf courses.  What do you think?  I am mostly curious about your opinion since you don’t care for bunkers.   Tom Doak won’t agree with me because if he did they would never hire him to “restore” the golf course 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,
If you have been in every bunker on as Steven Smyers course I would be shocked     That would be amazingly hard feat to pull off! 

Well congratulations to me. I just went over all the bunkers on the course there are actually two holes that don't have any bunkers. In twelve years I was just about everywhere a bad shot could take you. There are only a few bunkers that I think should be removed and they are in a cluster of bunkers.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I remember playing Old Memorial in Tampa for the first time when it opened and thinking there might be more sand on this course than grass    I played with the super that day and I kept thinking, what a tough job he has     Not only zillions of bunkers, but deep and high flashed sand bunkers.  If money isn't an issue and the members love it, all the power to them. 


This thread is about depth of bunkers, not quantity of bunkers but I wonder who will take the lead in reducing the number of bunkers on courses on new course designs in the years ahead (assuming any new courses are ever built again) 


I was working on a project in Hilton Head and wanted the redesign to have zero formal bunkers (it would have worked but the project was put on hold). 


Mark

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,
I remember playing Old Memorial in Tampa for the first time when it opened and thinking there might be more sand on this course than grass    I played with the super that day and I kept thinking, what a tough job he has     Not only zillions of bunkers, but deep and high flashed sand bunkers.  If money isn't an issue and the members love it, all the power to them. 


This thread is about depth of bunkers, not quantity of bunkers but I wonder who will take the lead in reducing the number of bunkers on courses on new course designs in the years ahead (assuming any new courses are ever built again) 


I was working on a project in Hilton Head and wanted the redesign to have zero formal bunkers (it would have worked but the project was put on hold). 


Mark

Mark, Four Streams does not have nearly as much sand as Old Memorial. Four Streams does have deep fairway bunkers. Some of them will tempt you to hit more club than is prudent and some are shallow enough to hit full shots. It was Four Streams and Ballyhack that caused the genesis of this thread.

[Sean_A]

Mark

No, I wouldn't advocate for a new bunker on 15.  I would advocate for going back 85 years and look at the course from that PoV and see whats what bunkerwise (and everything else for that matter).  ANGC has had so many layers of paint slapped on it that its ahrd to know the original colour anymore.  We sometimes talk about lost courses and architectural blunders, it could well be that ANGC is #1 on that list.  When first seeing that original ugusta plan 25ish years ago and trying to get my head around the bunker scheme, I knew what was happening in recent times was the wasn't the way to go about things.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
The horse left that barn a long time ago at Augusta National.  Your answer I am afraid is politically correct on this site but a cop out.  The hole there today is what it is.  We would be watching it played right now if it weren’t for this pandemic.  Do you like it the way it is and if not what would you do to improve it?  If Ben Crenshaw recommended putting a bunker complex there would that make you feel better about it?  I know if Tom Fazio suggested it, you wouldn’t like it.  Tom Doak said there was never a bunker there to begin with so maybe it makes no sense to add one and the area should just be nice and open as it once was.  RTJ Sr didn’t think so and added goofy moguls.  Then again, maybe the new pine trees clogging up the landing area and blocking the panoramic views are just fine.  Leave it as is 

[Thomas Dai]

No, I wouldn't advocate for a new bunker on 15.  I would advocate for going back 85 years and look at the course from that PoV and see whats what bunkerwise (and everything else for that matter).

Came across this of how the 15th (ex-6th) was in 1934 - https://twitter.com/i/status/1248657559655002112
Only a few differences!
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()