Bunker positioning

[Thomas Dai]

A course tour by members of the Green Committee? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-JVnlB7Onk
 
atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whilst I enjoyed that Dai, I’m going to dig you out of that hole and bring the thread back on topic by asking a question:


- In terms of positioning only (not style), Which GB&I links courses have the most interesting bunker schemes? Centrelines, diagonals, deceptive approach bunkers, strategic options


Reason I ask is despite us having so many great links courses, quite a few of them have pretty mundane bunker positioning. Or if not mundane, quite penal setups for Championship golf.

[Thomas Dai]

To take this one step further, I'm kind of wondering if there's a future for sand bunkers anywhere other than on courses which are already sandy in nature such as seaside links and sand based inland courses, and even then maybe in less numbers.
I'd hoped that the initial no rakes, less immaculately maintained approach (introduced as it was due to the current vile Covid-19 situation) would lead to a longer term change in view regarding bunkers and hazards. Namely a return to sandy hazards that are actually hazardous, where skill and judgement are needed and an element of challenge and thrill exists. I am no longer hopeful of this however for wimpishness and a seeming desire for 'fairness' seems to have now prevailed.
So if sand bunkers are no longer to be somewhere nasty, ie somewhere hazardous to be avoided, then why even bother to have them, especially on inland courses? And of course they are time consuming and thus costly to maintain.
Sad as it is to think it but maybe it's time to just grass them all over?
atb

[Sean_A]

Ally

I agree.  Most links have rather mundane bunker schemes.  Princes is one where I think the bunkers are well placed, but I haven't seen any recent work.

Brancaster is another with high impact bunkering....same for North Berwick.  I can't think of any champ links which are particularly well bunkered other than TOC.  Muirfield always get the nod, but with so many bunkers its hard not cover every base.  Its very much a bunker dominated design.   I don't get this sense from TOC at all even though it has a fair number of bunkers.  That could be because so many aren't seen.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Ally

I agree.  Most links have rather mundane bunker schemes.  Princes is one where I think the bunkers are well placed, but I haven't seen any recent work.

Brancaster is another with high impact bunkering....same for North Berwick.  I can't think of any champ links which are particularly well bunkered other than TOC.  Muirfield always get the nod, but with so many bunkers its hard not cover every base.  Its very much a bunker dominated design.   I don't get this sense from TOC at all even though it has a fair number of bunkers.  That could be because so many aren't seen.

Well you are not going to find your idea of good bunkering on the Open rota because the R & A and their consultants have kept adding bunkers every Open or two.  The only one of those courses that was mostly exempt from that was The Old Course, until Mr. Dawson's last year.

[Thomas Dai]

Ally
I agree.  Most links have rather mundane bunker schemes.  Princes is one where I think the bunkers are well placed, but I haven't seen any recent work.
Brancaster is another with high impact bunkering....same for North Berwick.  I can't think of any champ links which are particularly well bunkered other than TOC.  Muirfield always get the nod, but with so many bunkers its hard not cover every base.  Its very much a bunker dominated design.   I don't get this sense from TOC at all even though it has a fair number of bunkers.  That could be because so many aren't seen.

Well you are not going to find your idea of good bunkering on the Open rota because the R & A and their consultants have kept adding bunkers every Open or two.  The only one of those courses that was mostly exempt from that was The Old Course, until Mr. Dawson's last year.

And now we have the craze for opened-up sandy waste areas, faux-bunkers (?) as well, eg the new par-3 at Hoylake.
Atb

[Niall C]

- In terms of positioning only (not style), Which GB&I links courses have the most interesting bunker schemes? Centrelines, diagonals, deceptive approach bunkers, strategic options

Reason I ask is despite us having so many great links courses, quite a few of them have pretty mundane bunker positioning. Or if not mundane, quite penal setups for Championship golf.

Ally


The term "bunkering scheme" suggests a coherent and consistent approach applied throughout a course and I'd agree that a lot of the times you don't get that, perhaps because each succeeding generation have made their own incremental tweaks that have added up to a hotch potch of ideas.


Bunkering on links also tends to take into account all conditions and even the most innocuous of looking bunkers can be a huge hazard when the winds blowing the other way. That said, Carnoustie has a number of centre line bunkers, a famous cross bunker, and many flanking bunkers both asymmetrical on both sides or flanking on one side only. Most of them are of the Dai Thomas "take that ya b*****d" type but not all. And is their a links hole that has utilised bunkering to greater effect to create strategy than the 6th at Carnoustie ?

Overall a fairly good effort I'd have thought.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

It may have been that in a previous life I was a centre-half for a west coast of Scotland futba team Niall!
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

- In terms of positioning only (not style), Which GB&I links courses have the most interesting bunker schemes? Centrelines, diagonals, deceptive approach bunkers, strategic options

Reason I ask is despite us having so many great links courses, quite a few of them have pretty mundane bunker positioning. Or if not mundane, quite penal setups for Championship golf.

Bunkering on links also tends to take into account all conditions and even the most innocuous of looking bunkers can be a huge hazard when the winds blowing the other way.

Niall, this point is extremely important and is one of the main reasons you really need to know and understand a links course before you can recommend bunker positional changes. It is impossible and pointless to design by yardages.


There’s a distinct lack of fun in much of our links bunkering though.

[Tom_Doak]

There’s a distinct lack of fun in much of our links bunkering though.

That is hardly surprising, since I do not recall Old Tom Morris or John Low or James Braid ever applying the word "fun" to what they thought golf should be like.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There’s a distinct lack of fun in much of our links bunkering though.

That is hardly surprising, since I do not recall Old Tom Morris or John Low or James Braid ever applying the word "fun" to what they thought golf should be like.

By fun I mean cheekiness, teasing, goading, a challenge of wits.


Interesting bunker schemes tended to come after OTM and a lot of our links courses. They were applied more to the heathland courses once the strategic heads got going.


Even the really great hazards (often penal, cross hazards) from before that time have been designed out in a lot of cases.


I actually think it is why too forced a strategic scheme can look contrived and distinctly modern on a links course where the land should be a bigger part in dictating the hazards. But with that said, many of our courses now neither have memorable penal hazards nor a huge amount of strategic choice with their bunker schemes. A little bit of both goes a long way to adding some character.

[Niall C]

It may have been that in a previous life I was a centre-half for a west coast of Scotland futba team Niall!
Atb

David

I can just picture you in a starting line up including Dave MacKay, Billy Bremner, Tam Forsyth, Bertie Auld and Duncan Ferguson. Mind you might need to gain a few criminal convictions to hold down your place. 

Niall

[Niall C]

Ally

Looking at it conversely I'd suggest it was easier for the ODG's to design or impose a bunkering scheme on an inland course because their isn't as many variables as you get on a links.

In terms of fun I think you're wrong. Surely the fun is being able to avoid the bunkers and plot your way by them, and also to recover from them if you go in. A well designed links bunker also has the potential to gather balls in a way that an inland bunker can't. Granted they often don't offer the same chance of redemption as inland bunkers but that's often due to trying to keep the wind from blowing all the sand away. That and Mr Hawtree's penchant for small circular pots.

Niall   

[Sean_A]

Niall

My over riding memory of Carnoustie other difficulty are the gathering bunkers. I thought this was the best feature of the design. Being able to see a gathering bunker do it's thing is fun and frustrating for me.

Carnoustie is a course I would like to see again in the right circumstances.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I can just picture you in a starting line up including Dave MacKay, Billy Bremner, Tam Forsyth, Bertie Auld and Duncan Ferguson. Mind you might need to gain a few criminal convictions to hold down your place. 

atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

You’re all taking the word fun far too literally...


My point being that many links courses have veered towards homogeneous flanking bunkers on both sides. That doesn’t mean that they are not effective (especially when gathering) nor does it mean that they do not play their part in how a hole is played.


Niall, to your first point, I agree. I have often considered that neither the “strategic” nor the “penal” school works best on a links course. I believe that the “chaotic” school is the answer: See The Old Course for specimen no.1. See also placing the bunkers where the most divots are, more support for having to really know a links before you design on it.

[Sean_A]

It's fine to have some "randomly" placed links bunkers based on natural land formations. I however suggest that most links still benefit from purposely placed penal and strategic bunkers.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's fine to have some "randomly" placed links bunkers based on natural land formations. I however suggest that most links still benefit from purposely placed penal and strategic bunkers.

Ciao

No disagreement here. Consideration and a mix of all three schools of thinking adds to a much more interesting scheme on the links. Strategic should always be overarching. But as Niall hints at, strategy comes in many forms on a links course.


Plus the kind of penal I like (cross bunkers etc...) are not that prevalent any more. Courses have flanking fairway bunkers on both sides too often as the main defence.

[Thomas Dai]

Some links courses seem to do quite well with relatively few bunkers. Perranporth, B-b Cashen and Carne-Hackett come to mind. A matter of the severity of the terrain?
atb

[Sean_A]

It's fine to have some "randomly" placed links bunkers based on natural land formations. I however suggest that most links still benefit from purposely placed penal and strategic bunkers.

Ciao

No disagreement here. Consideration and a mix of all three schools of thinking adds to a much more interesting scheme on the links. Strategic should always be overarching. But as Niall hints at, strategy comes in many forms on a links course.

Plus the kind of penal I like (cross bunkers etc...) are not that prevalent any more. Courses have flanking fairway bunkers on both sides too often as the main defence.

Ally

Yes, far too many bunkers on fairway flanks without ground to feed them.  That problem extends way beyond links. 

Highly strategic bunkers are fairly rare.  Hell and P Nose are two of the most famous exmples and P Nose is now a penal bunker cluster. Its instructive that 25 yards of fairway can completely alter the purpose of a bunker.  Add the Road Hole Bunker into the mix (I always thought of this as a penal bunker because of the road as a hazard in the old fashion sense of the word) and its easy to see why bunkers add to TOC's fame and quality. That said, some of the most famous bunkers are highly penal...being nasty looking I think often aided their claim to fame.  Which is one reason why the ever looking relatively tame RHB always intrigued me.  I guess for most its the lesser of two evils if going for broke.

WW

No question the courses you mention need very little else heighten the anxiety or fun levels (depending on one's PoV  ).

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Some links courses seem to do quite well with relatively few bunkers. Perranporth, B-b Cashen and Carne-Hackett come to mind. A matter of the severity of the terrain?
atb

Carne Hackett has some pretty average bunkering though. There are 18 in total and barely any of them play a part. The best ones (in position terms) are the centre fairway bunker on 5 and the green side bunker on left of 13. You could remove the rest and there would be no real change to play.


I wouldn’t mind a go at redoing the scheme, even by keeping the total to 18 or less..... actually, I’d like to get back at the 16 bunkers on the Kilmore 9 which have lost all aesthetics over the years. They were pretty simple to begin with.