Why put bunkers in landing area?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike knows Flynn used to add bunkers (many in the landing areas) well after the course was built as he saw and learned how the course was played.  He didn't want to put bunkers where nobody ended up, why bother. 

[Sven Nilsen]

If you can't see the difference between Oakmont and its "flanking" lines of bunkers and ANGC and its singular fairway bunkers, so be it.

Here's an alternative account of the Snead story

Obviously Snead hadn't hit a shot in the fairway.

"Like Thor hurling thunderbolts, W.C. was known to place bunkers wherever stray shots had gone unpunished. An episode from a World War II War Bond exhibition match is a prime example. In a practice round, Sam Snead had discovered an alternate route to No. 7, a tee shot played to the right. He made birdie. The next day, pleased and confident, Snead hit his tee shot there again. This time he found his ball lying in the bottom of a brand-new bunker, and he made bogey. Simple: The superintendent had phoned W.C. and W.C. had ordered a new bunker overnight."

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Back to the question at hand.


There are a myriad of styles (Oakmont and ANGC being two).  Both are strong tests of the game, only in different ways.


There should be room in the world of golf for these differing styles.  Not everyone is going to want to play an extremely penal course every day, but some people might.


Much of what we discuss around here seems like an attempt to narrow down golf to one particular "ideal."  Part of the beauty of the game for me is that you can have different experiences at different places, on courses designed by different architects with their own styles, or sometimes on courses by the same architect on land that demanded those courses be different.


Sven

[mike_malone]

Back to the question at hand.


There are a myriad of styles (Oakmont and ANGC being two).  Both are strong tests of the game, only in different ways.


There should be room in the world of golf for these differing styles.  Not everyone is going to want to play an extremely penal course every day, but some people might.


Much of what we discuss around here seems like an attempt to narrow down golf to one particular "ideal."  Part of the beauty of the game for me is that you can have different experiences at different places, on courses designed by different architects with their own styles, or sometimes on courses by the same architect on land that demanded those courses be different.


Sven

Sven,


If more courses weren’t so overbunkered we would have more variety and I wouldn’t have started this topic.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Amen to your last post     I have always said the beauty of golf is the vast variety of the playing fields.  And yes there are lots of stories and people remember things different ways and report things differently which is what makes definitive research results challenging at best. 


Mike,
Some courses are over bunkered but some are not.  Merion is one you said you consider "wildly over bunkered" but most including me consider it CLEARLY one of the greatest golf courses in the world.  How can that be 

[Niall C]

If you can't see the difference between Oakmont and its "flanking" lines of bunkers and ANGC and its singular fairway bunkers, so be it.

Here's an alternative account of the Snead story

Obviously Snead hadn't hit a shot in the fairway.

"Like Thor hurling thunderbolts, W.C. was known to place bunkers wherever stray shots had gone unpunished. An episode from a World War II War Bond exhibition match is a prime example. In a practice round, Sam Snead had discovered an alternate route to No. 7, a tee shot played to the right. He made birdie. The next day, pleased and confident, Snead hit his tee shot there again. This time he found his ball lying in the bottom of a brand-new bunker, and he made bogey. Simple: The superintendent had phoned W.C. and W.C. had ordered a new bunker overnight."

Sven

Sven


I've got no dog in this fight but I have to say, your version of the Snead story says much the same thing as Mark's version in that it shows that Sneads drive wasn't wayward but on the contrary was hit where he intended.


Niall

[Forrest Richardson]

Sven — A "myth" is usually involving the supernatural. I'm not sure the total numbers of bunkers at Oakmont in days gone bye is a "myth" as much as it is a trivial fact that we just can't seem to answer now in 2021. If you heard Arthur A. Snyder discuss building bunkers every day for many years (under the direction of Mr. Fownes), I think you might come away with the feeling that the place was littered with "pits" of all sizes, shapes an locations — and there did not seem to be any limitation, budget constraints or appetite for building fewer as opposed to more. (Arthur A. Snyder, by the way, began his time at Oakmont in 1907 caddying for Mr. Fownes. After that, and getting to know Mr. Fownes, his interest in greenkeeping landed him a job on the grounds crew. Some years later he left Oakmont to pursue a career as a superintendent. In 1979 Arthur A. Snyder became the 19th recipient of the USGA's Green Section Award.)

Besides, as Desmond Muirhead once said, "A golf course is a difficult thing for most people to appreciate as a whole — the key to understanding any course is to study each hole individually...a single hole is much more apt to be 'solved' as opposed to attempting 18-holes in one single dose."

I've used a similar notion — "When a players gets too many holes in their head...it leads to disarray."

[Sven Nilsen]

Niall:


It wasn’t in the fairway, or perfect, which was the point.


You see the difference, right?


Sven

[Niall C]

Sven


If Snead hit it where he meant to hit it then presumably it was perfect, or at least his preferred position, and the point of the story is that Fownes intention was not to punish a bad shot but to stop Snead playing to his preferred position. That is of course my interpretation of Fownes intention and I could very well be wrong.


Niall

[Steve Lang]

Your OP statement was:"Bunkers only affect a small number of players. They require maintenance. Why not just have grass options to affect everyone?" 
You've qualified that for certain courses that get "passes", ok, sure, one cannot generalize or be absolute about anything in the USA. Now it appears its not variety within a course but between courses that are "over bunkered?"   And that should be driving things for the good of past, present, and future gca?  So with whom and where are you playing golf that these "excessively bad number of bunkers" are so bothersome to your or Joe/Joseph's Golfer's play?At The WCC we had one of our courses renovated by a name architect, the plan reduced 1/3 rd of the bunker areas for fairways and greens, and the greens were rebuilt pretty much to their pre-reno shape and challenges with new generation grass (at the time) & some general improvements for pinning, it certainly reduced bunker maintenance and rake costs, but from the practical side of things it didn't change general upkeep or keep dues from increasing, and neutered many holes IMHO. BTW this is one of the best bait threads in a while

[Sven Nilsen]

Niall-


You’d agree that Fownes was trying to get players to hit the fairway or suffer the consequences, correct?


That is what was meant by perfect. 


You need to think about all of this with the idea in mind of delaying punishment for an offline shot until you get closer to the green.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

There are always exceptions but I think the greatest golf courses offer interest and challenge and sometimes penalty on all shots whether it be the tees shots, the approaches, the recovery shots, the short game shots as well as the putting.  I said this same thing before about Pete Dye courses as his designs require thought on every golf shot.  I think Ross said it best and I believe Pete followed him with the same design standards - Make each hole present a different problem, make sure every stroke must be made with full concentration and attention and build each hole wasting none of the ground at my disposal!  Pretty clear if you ask me.  Bunkers played a huge hole for both architects in their designs both near the green and in the landing areas. 

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I was thinking, can we at least agree on what are “center-line” hazards?  These kind of hazards don’t need to be in the middle of the fairway.  They are hazards that are in the direct line to the hole.  Oakmont has many of those.  What is a flanking hazard for some is a center-line hazard for others. 


Mike do you dislike any bunkers “in the landing area” whether they are in the center or on the sides?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
I was thinking, can we at least agree on what are “center-line” hazards?  These kind of hazards don’t need to be in the middle of the fairway.  They are hazards that are in the direct line to the hole.  Oakmont has many of those.  What is a flanking hazard for some is a center-line hazard for others. 


Mike do you dislike any bunkers “in the landing area” whether they are in the center or on the sides?

Can we first agree on which version of Oakmont we’re talking about - the one you played or the course that The Fownes and Loeffler built.

[Sven Nilsen]

To respond to Forrest, we don’t have to try to figure out the number.  They did that back in the 20’s and 30’s for us.  Question is why you don’t believe them.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
What you are missing is that the course that Fownes and Loeffler built was changing every day.  It was a work in progress.  Also did you know some of the bunkers were less than 20sqft?  Who knows what was counted and what wasn’t.  As Forrest said, maybe the little ones were counted as pits instead   


You have no idea the exact number nor does anyone else.  We are all only going on different accounts and stories of what we heard and read. You as well as anyone should know just because it showed up in some article doesn’t mean it was accurate.  The best evidence are early aerials but they only go back so far and we don’t have them for every year.  Very small bunkers are also not easy to see plus the course was changing constantly (if any course had a philosophy to alter the course as the game changed it was Oakmont).  There were literally days when the number of bunkers on the course changed dramatically - one irrefutable evidence is the Church Pews. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:

You don’t come up with a number like 193 by guessing.

We’ll agree to disagree.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
No worries.  Just like with Mike’s post.  If we all agree on everything, golf courses might all be the same 

[Mark_Fine]

By the way, just so we know, what is the max number of bunkers Oakmont ever had?  I trust you would bet your house on it 

[Sven Nilsen]

By the way, just so we know, what is the max number of bunkers Oakmont ever had?  I trust you would bet your house on it 

I’d take the under for the mortgage on 350.  As Super Dave would say, its not gambling unless its your house.