[John Mayhugh]

In the most recent Golf Course Architecture magazine, there is an opinion piece by a European architect - Peter Harradine. In "Useless monuments: the scourge of golf," Harradine describes the benefits of eliminating bunkers and the folly of having them in the first place. One line stood out: "I'm actually not a fan of fairway bunkers and prefer to work with trees and natural hazards."

One of the great things about GCA magazine is that reading it gives a perhaps broader perspective on golf architecture than we get in this discussion group. Is there any merit in what Harradine writes? Forgetting about the aesthetic and playing impact, would tree maintenance costs be cheaper overall than fairway bunkers? Are continental courses over-burdened with bad bunkers?

The bunkers in the photos accompanying the article sure are not compelling - even the one he chose to retain.
http://digital.tudor-rose.co.uk/golf-course-architecture/issue60/48/

[Garland Bayley]

Trees are cheaper! My course operates under the philosophy that the best solution is to plant a tree instead of going to the cost of adding an appropriate bunker. Trees are easier to plant here (native trees basically grow like weeds so there is a huge supply) than building a bunker. Trees are easier (and cheaper) to maintain than raking bunkers, refilling with sand, and rebuilding bunkers. Trees are easier to remove. We can hire an expert to fell a large tree for $100, then the crew will have it cut up and removed in a day.
 
The result. A course choked with trees that sane people wouldn't want to play. Hey, i never said I was sane. Of course on the other extreme, i find aerial views of Shinnecock to be obscene.

Due to the eclectic bunkerless course thread, I have been looking at links courses and the bunkering or lack there of. The interesting conclusion I have come to is that links courses have the natural terrain that reduces the need for bunkers while antithetically having the most raw resources for creating bunkers.

[Steve Lang]

I thought the only maintenance cost for trees were cutting them down... which appears pretty cheap from Garland's reference cost...


The pic in that article looks to have almost the same area of sand in the remaining bunker as the "before" two fronting/side bunkers..   

[Kalen Braley]

Steve,

I would think there are other costs:

1)  Annual Leave collection and removal
2)  Trimming trees back when they impinge on line of play
3)  Turf repair issues due to trees taking nutrients in the ground, or shade issues.
4)  Additional water costs to keep both grass and trees alive. (Exception to wet environments where Garland lives)

[Wayne_Kozun]

In some jurisdictions trees are not so easy to cut down.  Here in Toronto you have to plant three for every one you cut.

[Thomas Dai]

There’d be a lot of money accumulated if £1 were deposited for every golf course ditch or drain that’s blocked or adversely effected by tree roots.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whether you agree with him or not, whatever comes out of Peter Harradine’s mouth is always entertaining.

[Adam Lawrence]

Whether you agree with him or not, whatever comes out of Peter Harradine’s mouth is always entertaining.

The first time you hear it...

[John Mayhugh]

Whether you agree with him or not, whatever comes out of Peter Harradine’s mouth is always entertaining.

This was my primary take.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

Outside of politics, that was the most "blow-hardish" article I've read in quite awhile.  I'm sure he'd be a real pleasure to work with.   

P.S.  Loved this little contradiction.  Or perhaps he was lucky enough to renovate two courses with zero bad golfers.

"The usual critics said that the courses would be a lot easier to play without those “fantastic” bunkers. But, on the contrary, the average score did not decrease at all! We all know that a bad player plays badly whether there are bunkers or not, he just plays worse if there are many bunkers! "

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Bunkers are quite literally money pits. It's very hard to get someone who has not spent time on a maintenance staff to grasp quite how much goes into maintaining these hazards.

Similarly, I would venture to say that on member/player surveys, bunker dissatisfaction is probably the number 1 complaint. I would guess they even outrank green speeds. Perhaps some of you guys with greens committee experience could shed some light on this contention?

It seems like no one advocates sparsely or minimally bunkered courses. The first iteration of ANGC had 22 bunkers. Why do we have to have courses with zero or 200? Who's building intelligently bunkered courses?

[Thomas Dai]

Bunkers are quite literally money pits. It's very hard to get someone who has not spent time on a maintenance staff to grasp quite how much goes into maintaining these hazards.
Similarly, I would venture to say that on member/player surveys, bunker dissatisfaction is probably the number 1 complaint. I would guess they even outrank green speeds. Perhaps some of you guys with greens committee experience could shed some light on this contention?
It seems like no one advocates sparsely or minimally bunkered courses. The first iteration of ANGC had 22 bunkers. Why do we have to have courses with zero or 200? Who's building intelligently bunkered courses?

Golf has become a far more visually oriented game over the decades.

Unfortunately bunker sand is usually yellow and grass is usually green and yellow and green look nice together especially in photos and on TV.
If sand was a colour that didn’t look nice when contrasted to green grass then there’d probably be less bunkers.
Atb

[Niall C]

David


I'm not sure I agree in terms of bunkering. The trend in this country at any rate, seems to be a move away from the sand flashed faced bunkers to the Dave Thomas style of flat bottomed sand pits with roundy moundy humps in front. All you see is slightly different shades of green and some mounds as though the intent is to camoflage the thing.


Tom B


I understand the need to balance the books and the wise use of limited resources but when you are removing features to make the greenkeepers life easier and what is left makes the course poorer then surely someone should be making the case that if anything has to give it should be some of the maintenance practices.


In your experience has anyone made the case that the some of the bunkers could be a bit more ragged round the edges or that the cart paths aren't swept clean as much or the the flaming flower bed in front of the clubhouse could be reduced or done away with rather than doing away with a bunker that has some merit ?


Looking at the case study in Mr Harridines article, the green complex doesn't look that great before and possibly worse after. In removing the bunker to the right he has replaced it with rough. No doubt easier for the greenkeeper but if I played there I know what I'd prefer to play out of.


Niall   

[Niall C]

John,

Outside of politics, that was the most "blow-hardish" article I've read in quite awhile.  I'm sure he'd be a real pleasure to work with.   

P.S.  Loved this little contradiction.  Or perhaps he was lucky enough to renovate two courses with zero bad golfers.

"The usual critics said that the courses would be a lot easier to play without those “fantastic” bunkers. But, on the contrary, the average score did not decrease at all! We all know that a bad player plays badly whether there are bunkers or not, he just plays worse if there are many bunkers! "

Kalen


Agree


Niall

[mike_malone]

 As someone involved in both tree and bunker removal I think that both trees and bunkers should not be seen as hazards but as accessories to the look and play of the course. Some trees except for those creating doglegs are out of the way and part of the pastoral feel of a parkland course. Bunkers can change the look of a wide expanse of green or as Flynn says create a mode of play. This relates to fairway bunkers.


Green side bunkers are a different category. I don’t understand those parallel to play, directly in back of the green, or circling the green leaving only the “ hit it in the center of the green” option. Angled bunkers to angled greens makes sense to me. This even allows bunkers beyond the green. Still it is about creating strategy and a look.


Economical is the word that comes to mind for me.

[Don Mahaffey]

Trees in place of bunkers? Why are we talking about this?

[Craig Sweet]

I consider bunkers on a parkland course to be phony baloney...they belong there about as much as a lake belongs on a course in the desert.

[Niall C]

Craig


A true parkland is artificial so why worry about bunkers ?


Niall

[Craig Sweet]

Niall...and a links course isn't? 

[David Ober]

Niall...and a links course isn't?

Touché...

[Niall C]

Niall...and a links course isn't?

Isn't what ? Do you mean links courses aren't natural or bunkers on links courses aren't natural ? Or maybe even sand isn't natural on a links ? (surely not)

Basically all golf courses rely on the hand of man for their creation and therefore in that sense aren't natural.

Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall...and a links course isn't?

Craig -- I believe Niall was saying that parkland itself was artificial, not parkland golf. And contrasting this with linksland, which is natural.

[Garland Bayley]

Niall...and a links course isn't?

Craig -- I believe Niall was saying that parkland itself was artificial, not parkland golf. And contrasting this with linksland, which is natural.

If he was saying that, then he just doesn't know natural parklands.

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall...and a links course isn't?

Craig -- I believe Niall was saying that parkland itself was artificial, not parkland golf. And contrasting this with linksland, which is natural.

If he was saying that, then he just doesn't know natural parklands.

Parkland in its pure sense -- the parks around large country houses created by the likes of Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton -- is 100 per cent a created landscape.

[Craig Sweet]

It is all about what we do with the land. Yes, a links course may lay upon the land more naturally, with little effort made by man to change anything about the land...But the grass is mowed, earth is moved, and and often non native grass is introduced.


My original comment had more to do with creating a sand hazard on land that contains little or no sand in order to "mimic" something found on a links course.   Much like creating a lake in the middle of a desert (I understand the lake is probably used for irrigation and water retention) to make an fake hazard. Ya know, like a windmill on a mimi golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()