[Thomas Dai]

This is a further follow-up to this thread - [/size]https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69284.0.html[/color][/size] - where many suggested that the biggest waste of money within golf is bunker related.[/color][/size]So, if bunkers on non-sandy terrain courses disappeared tomorrow and were replaced by grassy hollows and humps type contouring would this be acceptable to you?Atb[/color]

[Bruce Katona]

Grass bunkers create more inconsistent lies than sand ones do; frustrating the good golfer.  For the average player, grass bunkers are easier to play out of as more times than not, the grass will give the ball a fluffier lie, allowing the golfer the opportunity to slide the club under the ball and pop it out.

[Tom_Doak]

The waste of money is not HAVING bunkers, it's BUILDING or MAINTAINING them the way golfers here expect them to be maintained.  I can't imagine that bunker maintenance is a big line item on the heathland courses . . . in fact, though you exempted "courses on sandy soil" it's the cost of rebuilding revetted faces on links courses that is the principal cost issue for many smaller clubs.


So the real question is whether golfers would rather have (a) no bunkers or (b) bunkers that are less meticulously maintained.  I'm guessing most would choose (b), which is why I keep building bunkers on my courses, though in lesser numbers than previously.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree with TD.  I have mentioned this before, but years ago, had a new public course and renovated private course jobs in the same city.  The public course spent $50K per year on sand bunkers, raking 3 X per week, and the private spent $250K per year on sand bunkers, raking, edging (with scissors!) 7 X per week, and replacing sand more often, etc.


And, in reality, with 66% of the US courses being public with average greens fees, I suspect many use the "less than perfect model" but of course, we don't discuss those courses very often here.  Not to mention, for some <$30 courses, maybe even $50K is too much to spend.


BTW, I have seen reports of proper bunker liners saving $50K per year, with one Midwest Super pegging his overall savings at over $100K per year, figuring all the washout days his green, tee, fw mower guys transferred over to bunker repair, delaying some maintenance.  I thought that was a bit much, but he would know.

[Garland Bayley]

Absolutely! What the heck are sand bunkers doing in non-sandy terrain courses any way? Make your hazards to suit the location!

I once made a grassy hollow suggestion on here that made Tom Doak conclude that I was just plain mean.

Long live William Hickman Diddel!

[Edward Glidewell]

I think that most public courses would lose a lot of play to other nearby courses if they eliminated all their bunkers.


The visual aspect is pretty important to standard retail golfers, whether you like it or not. I've heard courses with few or no bunkers disdainfully described as "just playing in a big field".

[Kalen Braley]

For whatever reason, a lot of local courses here in Nor. Utah don't have much fairway bunkering, but still your typical amount of green-side bunkers.  And it doesn't seem to hurt the amount of local play...perhaps this could be more widely adopted.

[Mark_Fine]

I had the idea of no formal bunkers for a renovation project down in SC but the project ended up going to Rees Jones   However, I don’t think the solution is to eliminate all bunkers on courses that don’t have sandy soil.  Bunkers might not be natural on most courses but grass mowed at less than 1/8” for greens and 3/8” for fairways isn’t natural looking either.  Bunkers do serve a purpose on most golf courses as the idea behind using them on inland layouts was to try to emulate the original game played on linksland.  That said, there are MANY courses out there that would be better focusing on how many bunkers they have, what is the purpose/design intent of each one, and also on how meticulously they are maintained.  A careful assessment along with more education about the costs of over-maintaining them can help save a lot of money. 

[Andrew Harvie]

I can guarantee you every Stanley Thompson golf course would look really odd without bunkers. It's a Thompson cliche that his architecture relied on bunkering, but for sure at Banff, Jasper and St. George's, sans bunkering would look really off-putting to my eye.

[Tim_Weiman]

I can guarantee you every Stanley Thompson golf course would look really odd without bunkers. It's a Thompson cliche that his architecture relied on bunkering, but for sure at Banff, Jasper and St. George's, sans bunkering would look really off-putting to my eye.

Drew,


If memory serves, Stanley Thompson was the architect for Sleepy Hollow, a public course in Brecksville, OH near Cleveland. I played the course many times back in the days when Charlie Sifford was the pro (early 1980s).


IMO, Sleepy Hollow really didn’t depend much on bunkers at all. The topography and greens were just that good. Aesthetically, hardly anything would lost if you removed all the bunkers.


Perhaps this course is just an exception to your rule or my memory isn’t so great!

[Paul Rudovsky]

In recent years I have noticed as trend in the USA towards "Australian styled" bunkers...large bunkers with very very firm "walls" and flat bottoms.  I assume some chemical or similar product is applied to the walls to keep them firm.  As a result, balls do not plug on the walls, and end up on relatively flat sand at the bottom.  Given that most of the maintenance $$ for bunkers is probably associated with maintaining the "walls", I would think this might be a very good solution...and courses in Australia have bunkering that is basically outstanding.


Anyone else notice this trend?

[Andrew Harvie]

I can guarantee you every Stanley Thompson golf course would look really odd without bunkers. It's a Thompson cliche that his architecture relied on bunkering, but for sure at Banff, Jasper and St. George's, sans bunkering would look really off-putting to my eye.

Drew,


If memory serves, Stanley Thompson was the architect for Sleepy Hollow, a public course in Brecksville, OH near Cleveland. I played the course many times back in the days when Charlie Sifford was the pro (early 1980s).


IMO, Sleepy Hollow really didn’t depend much on bunkers at all. The topography and greens were just that good. Aesthetically, hardly anything would lost if you removed all the bunkers.


Perhaps this course is just an exception to your rule or my memory isn’t so great!

I believe Stanley only did nine there, and I'm blanking on which nine he did. I want to say the side with the canyon hole? Maybe that's the back?


I agree that there is certain examples of golf courses in his catalog that don't need bunkers, but quite a few of his golf courses have pretty impressive shaping and bunkering art, and if you changed them to grassy hollows, you'd lose some of the magic. At Jasper, for example, the bunkering seems to mimic the mountain peaks, but would you see that if it was grassy hollows? I doubt it. Most can't even see that now without more experienced visitors showing them! Likewise for Banff.

[mike_malone]

On an earlier topic about bunkers in the landing area I suggested that you “paint” the grass to look like a bunker. You could create a visual on the grass bunkers from afar which would disappear up close.

[Jeff Schley]

In recent years I have noticed as trend in the USA towards "Australian styled" bunkers...large bunkers with very very firm "walls" and flat bottoms.  I assume some chemical or similar product is applied to the walls to keep them firm.  As a result, balls do not plug on the walls, and end up on relatively flat sand at the bottom.  Given that most of the maintenance $$ for bunkers is probably associated with maintaining the "walls", I would think this might be a very good solution...and courses in Australia have bunkering that is basically outstanding.


Anyone else notice this trend?

I don't know about chemicals, but I can say the sand is heavier and more compact than in the US. I do believe it has to be do with the maintenance and smoothing the faces with like a broom, rather than a rake. As a result it is harder and repels. They only rake the bottom of the bunker.

[Jeff Schley]

Found this very informative RMGC super video explaining their bunker maintenance.
https://www.facebook.com/PGATour/videos/royal-melbourne-golf-clubs-superintendent-explains-course-setup/2457728554482914/

[Tom_Doak]

In recent years I have noticed as trend in the USA towards "Australian styled" bunkers...large bunkers with very very firm "walls" and flat bottoms.  I assume some chemical or similar product is applied to the walls to keep them firm.  As a result, balls do not plug on the walls, and end up on relatively flat sand at the bottom.  Given that most of the maintenance $$ for bunkers is probably associated with maintaining the "walls", I would think this might be a very good solution...and courses in Australia have bunkering that is basically outstanding.


Anyone else notice this trend?

We may mimic the shapes of MacKenzie's and Morcom's bunkers in Australia, but I have never seen a bunker in the USA maintained like those on the Sand Belt.


The steep banks there pictured above are just the native sand/soil mixture, which is very fine and packs tightly, so that balls do not plug but just roll down to the flat portion of the bunker.  It doesn't rain much so they don't deal with washouts too often.


On most of the "constructed" bunkers here the faces have only a thin layer of sand [2-4 inches] over some kind of liner, in the hopes that balls won't plug.

[JMEvensky]

With so much money spent on bunker faces to make a plugged shot rare, why flash the sand up in the faces to begin with? Wouldn't a more elegant, and substantially cheaper, option be to just grass the faces?


I understand why Merion, et al keep their bunkers that way--but they can afford the maintenance. What's the point for the other 99%?

[John Emerson]

The waste of money is not HAVING bunkers, it's BUILDING or MAINTAINING them the way golfers here expect them to be maintained.  I can't imagine that bunker maintenance is a big line item on the heathland courses . . . in fact, though you exempted "courses on sandy soil" it's the cost of rebuilding revetted faces on links courses that is the principal cost issue for many smaller clubs.


So the real question is whether golfers would rather have (a) no bunkers or (b) bunkers that are less meticulously maintained.  I'm guessing most would choose (b), which is why I keep building bunkers on my courses, though in lesser numbers than previously.

Or C) a few (20 or less total) well placed, relatively small bunkers.  This seems to be about the number where even small budget clubs can keep up with something around this number.  Why are we saying all or none?

[Sean_A]

This is a further follow-up to this thread - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69284.0.html - where many suggested that the biggest waste of money within golf is bunker related.So, if bunkers on non-sandy terrain courses disappeared tomorrow and were replaced by grassy hollows and humps type contouring would this be acceptable to you?Atb

Generally speaking no. Bunkers add to variety and variety is important. The issue with many courses is the variety balance is out of whack toward bunkers. Build fewer, more meaningful, more difficult bunkers and all is well.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
I said mostly the same comments as you, however, I would take issue with your point about making bunkers "more difficult".  A lot of my renovation projects of late have helped me soften my view of how important "difficulty" is when it comes to bunkers.  I sure don't believe in out of play flat sand pits with no shape or depth, but I don't think every bunker needs to be "a shot lost" as Fownes would say. 


Someone used the term "dumbing down" golf courses for the weaker players or on public courses.  I don't advocate that at all, but I do think we need to take into account that golf is hard for the far majority of us.  Bunkers can make the game more interesting but like all design features should be used in moderation most of the time.  They all also don't have to be so hazardous that there is little chance of recovery for the average player.  It is a balance especially on courses that are not expecting to achieve some World or National ranking status which is 99% of them. 

[Niall C]

So the real question is whether golfers would rather have (a) no bunkers or (b) bunkers that are less meticulously maintained.  I'm guessing most would choose (b), which is why I keep building bunkers on my courses, though in lesser numbers than previously.

If there was an option (c) bunkers that are meticulously maintained, I'd still pick option (b) but I'd guess I might not be typical in that respect.


With regards to the maintenance rebuilding of revetted bunkers, I've long maintained that in the same way Augusta has encouraged a lot of clubs to turn their courses into gardens, the newly revetted bunkers on display at the Open each year encourage clubs with links courses to rebuild them more often than they used to, particularly since TOC started being used for the Open every 5 years.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I said mostly the same comments as you, however, I would take issue with your point about making bunkers "more difficult".  A lot of my renovation projects of late have helped me soften my view of how important "difficulty" is when it comes to bunkers.  I sure don't believe in out of play flat sand pits with no shape or depth, but I don't think every bunker needs to be "a shot lost" as Fownes would say. 


Someone used the term "dumbing down" golf courses for the weaker players or on public courses.  I don't advocate that at all, but I do think we need to take into account that golf is hard for the far majority of us.  Bunkers can make the game more interesting but like all design features should be used in moderation most of the time.  They all also don't have to be so hazardous that there is little chance of recovery for the average player.  It is a balance especially on courses that are not expecting to achieve some World or National ranking status which is 99% of them.

A shot lost? Depends on how good the golfer is. Just my opinion, but I would rather bunkers be harsh and rough generally forgiving. While I believe the rules should allow for a penalty drop the same as for water, one can always lose stroke and distance if they don't fancy the bunker shot. Keep in mind that I am talking about a total of 25-30 bunkers on the course, or less ideally. If a course has 50 bunkers, I am happy for there to be more of a difficulty spread, but none should easy up and puts.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

With so much money spent on bunker faces to make a plugged shot rare, why flash the sand up in the faces to begin with? Wouldn't a more elegant, and substantially cheaper, option be to just grass the faces?


I understand why Merion, et al keep their bunkers that way--but they can afford the maintenance. What's the point for the other 99%?

Hand-maintaining steep faced bunkers is not cheap, either.  And the same people who want the sand perfectly maintained will want the grass face irrigated and beautifully presented, and then it might cost even more than raking sand up the faces.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Is the optics of the bunker simply the stark contrast between the green grass and white sand?


Could this be replicated another way? for instance, could southern US courses build grass bunkers with fescue that brownout in the summer and stay green in the winter?

[John Emerson]

In recent years I have noticed as trend in the USA towards "Australian styled" bunkers...large bunkers with very very firm "walls" and flat bottoms.  I assume some chemical or similar product is applied to the walls to keep them firm.  As a result, balls do not plug on the walls, and end up on relatively flat sand at the bottom.  Given that most of the maintenance $$ for bunkers is probably associated with maintaining the "walls", I would think this might be a very good solution...and courses in Australia have bunkering that is basically outstanding.


Anyone else notice this trend?

I don't know about chemicals, but I can say the sand is heavier and more compact than in the US. I do believe it has to be do with the maintenance and smoothing the faces with like a broom, rather than a rake. As a result it is harder and repels. They only rake the bottom of the bunker.

Yes wetting agents are used in bunkers to keep the sand compacted.  They used levels to smooth out the faces.  Many times a tamp or a concrete compactor.  There are many ways to compact the faces to increase firmness.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()