[Thomas Dai]

We have yet to hear from a superintendent whether "more, smaller bunkers" are really more expensive to maintain or not.  I'm guessing that the answer is yes, in the USA, and no, in the UK, because in the UK they would only rake the bunkers that needed to be raked in the morning, and not all of them every day, so some of the little bunkers would be skipped.

Unfortunately Tom the ‘must be perfectly manicured at all times’ brigade now inhabit many if not most U.K. courses.
Some under the usual radar rural and rustic courses might get away with skipping on daily raking but the moaners will moan and moan if most courses don’t rake daily. And in the U.K. almost all raking is by hand not by ride-on machine.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

First, great topic!


Second, the answer is "it depends."


Third, just last week, I was called in to do a bunker reduction study, but in fact, the super didn't want to reduce the few very large bunkers the course had, but rather, enlarge the small ones, by "connecting"  a few nests of pot bunkers for easier raking, which surprised me a bit. 


I have designed the occasional "nests" of small bunkers, often one on an fw complex, and another by a green.  My reasoning is that most bunkers on any given course look too similar. And, particularly in mounds behind greens, I have had supers tell me that its easier to mow the turf surrounds if the mower can just keep going up or down the hill, rather than have to turn on a slope.


I read an article on energy consumption in the Sunday paper which made an interesting point.  Many feel the way to be energy independent in the US is to keep drilling for oil, ignoring the fact that if we reduced energy consumption first, there would be less need to dig.  That's not unlike dieting....if you don't eat the calories, you don't need to worry about burning them off.  And, not unlike designing in reasonable maintenance budgets, i.e. bunkers cost a lot to build and maintain, so designing fewer of them is the first step in a financially sustainable operation. 


That and some old quotes from Ross tend to make me think that for most courses in the "fun to play every day at a reasonable price" category, that the gca is best served to keep sand bunkering to a minimum that meets the design needs of the course.  Of course, a resort needs some features average golfers don't see every day, or they won't drive/fly very far to experience the course.  Similarly, every town probably has one course whose mission is to be the hardest in town, and they probably want more bunkers.


Bunkers can serve many purposes, i.e., hazards, plus direction (or misdirection) devices, aesthetics, safety, separation, drainage, and to save shots, to name a few.  I tend to place bunkers only where they serve at least two purposes, and almost never build a blind bunker (i.e. Ross again, making it the players job to avoid it) but also because they cost so much to build and maintain, it seems a shame to NOT see all that money spent on enhancing your enjoyment of a golf hole.


Lastly, bunkers are sort of like the number of employees in a large corporation, where it is said you could probably eliminate 20% of them and no one would notice.....

[Jim_Coleman]

   I almost never disagree with Jeff,  but I do here.  This is not a "great topic."  There is no number of bunkers that is too many, or too few.  Does Royal Ashdown Forest have too few (zero)?  Does Shinnecock, or Oakmont, or Whistling Straights have too many?  Is 46 too many or too few for Augusta? I'm sure there are hundreds of courses that have 46 or fewer bunkers and have too many.  Picking a number serves no purpose.  On the other hand, I agree with Jeff that the correct answer is, "it depends."  How many is not a great question.  How is a great question.

[Mark_Fine]

Clearly there is no right answer to this question but it is still a good one to ask and ponder about.  Forrest and I took three years studying and researching golf hazards like bunkers all over the world for our Hazards book. One thing we learned is that the variety is endless.  What works for one course might be completely wrong for another.  This topic always reminds me of Royal Ashdown Forest.  It has no bunkers and honestly doesn’t need any (except for one in the practice area so when members go elsewhere they can at least get some bunker practice) 

[Paul Jones]

I think a course has too many bunkers when they are not in play and just decoration or lighthouse bunkers.  I also do not like bunkers on both sides of the fairway at the same distance.



When does a course have too few bunkers?  Sheep Ranch?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think a course has too many bunkers when they are not in play and just decoration or lighthouse bunkers.  I also do not like bunkers on both sides of the fairway at the same distance.

Paul,


Many of my bunker reduction studies feature the pro or super taking me to a spot in the bunker and saying something like "not only are there no footprints here today, I haven't seen any in the ten years the course has been open."  For those who pay for maintaining a course, taking out bunkers that rarely see play is almost a no brainer.  (As opposed to golfers, who want to see those that get "too much action" moved or removed.


As to bunkers both sides at the same distance, I think I have done that once, the 18th at Sand Creek Station, and one magazine called it a daring move to bring back a feature from the 1950s.  Hmm.  Basically, bunkering both sides at whatever distance we think tee shots will land is not a great idea, but not one so bad that it can't be used once in a while, just like any other design feature.  Not to mention, lateral bunkering has to be extended to work for all players, giving the every increasing variation in tee shot distances, thus utilizing a lot of sand.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Mark's comment around using the "right type" of bunker is more interesting to me.

How does the process typically work when determining what type to use?

P.S.  Oddly the bunker-fest at WS isn't offensive to me...the entire project is clearly an exercise in maximalism to the max, so why not?

[Tom_Doak]

As to bunkers both sides at the same distance, I think I have done that once, the 18th at Sand Creek Station, and one magazine called it a daring move to bring back a feature from the 1950s.  Hmm.  Basically, bunkering both sides at whatever distance we think tee shots will land is not a great idea, but not one so bad that it can't be used once in a while, just like any other design feature.

I don't do that often, either, but we did have two bunkers across from each other on the 9th hole at Sebonack, and it made Jack Nicklaus way more uncomfortable than it did me.  He wanted us to move one or the other at least 25 yards downrange, even though the two landforms were where they were.

[Drew Maliniak]

Honestly, in my opinion, unless the site naturally has bunkers, I would advocate for zero bunkers on the course. 


They're terrible hazards for the new and inconsistent golfer but are saving graces for the better player because predictable and spin.

[/size]They're expensive. And if you wanted to build a "hard" course for top players, fewer bunkers the better. Green sites matter way more. [size=78%]

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Although the prevailing thought here is "wide fairways" I prefer to have one or two tee shots that require accuracy at full distance, just for variety.  It just seems that in most cases, we do that in treed rather than open areas, but if a course is all cornfield to start, then we might build bunkers because it's the only way to place hazards in those situations.  Or, trees one side, bunker other, etc.


Again, not too often.  The good player mantra is to always have a good bailout area, which you can't have with equal hazards both sides.  Or, a deep bunker one side and shallow the other, making golfers start to think about which side they want to miss....which sounds very Pete Dye like, but also, probably not favored by good players.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think Mark's comment around using the "right type" of bunker is more interesting to me.

How does the process typically work when determining what type to use?

P.S.  Oddly the bunker-fest at WS isn't offensive to me...the entire project is clearly an exercise in maximalism to the max, so why not?

Interesting comment, and to be honest, I'm not sure I have an easily discussable theory on that, save a few specific "not to's."


For example, recently I have been very aware of front right green bunkers that extend too far forward of the green front edge, since it is such a high miss area for average players.  When playing with average golfers I often find myself thinking, "If that bunker had been moved just a few feet back, a lot fewer balls would be in there."


I usually don't do strip bunkers along a lake as save bunkers, but am more likely to do it on a long par 4 than a short one or pare 5.  I have been told that if you are doing that as a save bunker, saving money by splitting the bunkers really gives you a 50% chance of them not working as intended, and only the long strip of sand will do.


There are more, but again, I am sure every gca has their own subtle memories of things that worked and didn't.  Funny, but we tend to remember the ones that didn't.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

Good comment, I wasn't even thinking about precise placement per se, but that is certainly key.  I was thinking more along the lines of stylistically which ones to use that match the site, weather, number of expected rounds, easiest to maintain, etc.

When I think of 'unique' bunkering I think of Castle Stuart or perhaps Engh's bunkering...

[Kalen Braley]

For example,

Reading about how much work goes into sand replacement at Pac Dunes, what if Tom had decided to go primarily with smaller pots to deal with the near non-stop wind at the site?  Sure he could have kept the bigger ones at holes like 6 and 13, but would the course have been regarded the same by the average retail golfer?

[Jerry Kluger]

There are too many bunkers when they are the only obstacle that you have to deal with on the course which to me gets boring.


Some of the best bunkers I have ever seen were at Pine Tree in Boynton Beach, FL and they were the best conditioned as well.  By that I mean that the sand was uniform - believe I played out of a bunch of them so I can verify that - and the sand was firm but not wet so you could really spin the ball if needed or you could allow for more release after the ball landed. 

[jeffwarne]

There are too many bunkers when they are the only obstacle that you have to deal with on the course which to me gets boring.


Some of the best bunkers I have ever seen were at Pine Tree in Boynton Beach, FL and they were the best conditioned as well.  By that I mean that the sand was uniform - believe I played out of a bunch of them so I can verify that - and the sand was firm but not wet so you could really spin the ball if needed or you could allow for more release after the ball landed.

Those two paragraphs seem at odds with each other.
Are you really "dealing with an obstacle" when the word "best" is assigned to a HAZARD because it is uniform enough that you can spin (or not) the ball as needed on command?

[Jerry Kluger]

Jeff: No matter how well conditioned the bunkers are they are still require a well executed shot and in most instances are more difficult to get up and down from as compared to two putting.

[Mark_Fine]

But Jerry, bunkers are supposed to be hazardous and unpredictable and not a place one should be comfortable being in. Today they are a prepared surface that is expected to be as you say “consistent and uniform” so there are no surprises.  This is in part why golf continues to get so expensive.  If bunkers were left less maintained and expected by golfers to be hazardous, maintenance costs would drop significantly on many courses.  And maybe less bunkers would be used as a result 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff:.... in most instances are more difficult to get up and down from as compared to two putting.

I would certainly hope so, otherwise why would one consider them at all?

[Tom_Doak]

For example,

Reading about how much work goes into sand replacement at Pac Dunes, what if Tom had decided to go primarily with smaller pots to deal with the near non-stop wind at the site?  Sure he could have kept the bigger ones at holes like 6 and 13, but would the course have been regarded the same by the average retail golfer?

I would guess not, nor would it be ranked as high by expert commentators.


BTW, Sand Hills has a lot of the same issues.  They put soil cement in the bunkers at the end of the season to minimize erosion in the winter months, but the erosion in summer is considerable.


It’s funny how making something look natural can require more maintenance than something foreign.

[Thomas Dai]

It’s funny how making something look natural can require more maintenance than something foreign.

It’ll be interesting to see how many of the crinkle cut edged bunkers and opened-up sandy areas that have been incorporated into courses over the last decade or so develop over time.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Good comment, I wasn't even thinking about precise placement per se, but that is certainly key.  I was thinking more along the lines of stylistically which ones to use that match the site, weather, number of expected rounds, easiest to maintain, etc.

When I think of 'unique' bunkering I think of Castle Stuart or perhaps Engh's bunkering...

I thought about this a bit, and I think one of the considerations was touched on - do you do flat sand and steep banks (typical on windy sites) or cape and bay, elevated above the fw to be attractive and easily seen (for golfers and from surrounding houses and roads, etc.) because visuals are more important.


The flash vs flat debate also concerns playability, where good players lament missing by 5 feet and having a plugged lie, where another player misses by 20 feet and ends up in the bottom of the bunker with a great lie.  Supers seem split on whether flashing sand or steep grass banks are easier to maintain, and might prefer to eliminate bunkers altogether.


Size and shape have been touched on, and when I started in this biz (and it is returning now on all those struggling courses) was to tune bunker design to raking and mowing equipment, i.e., sand lobes need to be at least 18 feet wide for power rakes to turn, and outside banks usually need 10-15 feet radius for bank mowers to negotiate at speed.


Regarding shape, I don't think I have ever seen a discussion on it, and given what is (I think) a big philosophical design shift, but the trend by Doak, Coore, etc. is to a more classic shape, i.e., less shape, as opposed to the RTJ style, which my ex described as "boobs and butts."  Longer, excuse the reference, "turd shaped" bunkers, which get their character from the jagged edges now typical are probably easier to maintain and use less sand than the 50-90s style. 


Shorter version.....like everything else, it depends.

[Jeff Schley]

Whistling Straits has too many bunkers certainly, but what saves them is that they have much maintenance on most of them. You look at them and they are mostly unkept around the slopes. I think many are not even raked I believe. So unnecessary.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
WS has a ton of bunkers that certainly aren’t in play but they are in view and part of what Pete was trying to do was make the golfer think the whole area was natural.  If only the golf holes/corridors are trying to look “like Ireland” which was the design intent, then the site will definitely look manufactured.  Just think of Sand Hills didn’t have all those natural blowouts surrounding it?  If the surrounding area were flat potato fields Sand Hills would look manufactured too. 


Koehler knew it was going to cost a fortune to build and maintain but to him so be it.  To some cost is not an issue whether we agree with it or not. 


Where I tend to have an issue with too many bunkers is on courses where maintenance costs ARE a big concern AND where the extra bunkers are mostly penal in nature primarily for higher handicap golfers. 


We have used the term “dumbed down” in the past on this site especially when it comes to public golf courses.  This happens when architects purposely make a course easier and less interesting.  I don’t believe in dumbing down a course just to lower maintenance costs and speed up play.  I believe in “clevering up” courses instead.  You do this by making the course more interesting and thought provoking for better golfers and at the same time a more enjoyable experience for those not as accomplished. This can be done in many ways with grassing lines, approaches, green expansions, mounding, short grass, trees, teeing areas, …, as well as proper use of bunkers.

[Jeff Schley]

Mark yes in the ages of gluttony and hedonism for golf course design in the 90's it was let the good times roll. I like the course, FWIW, but the bunkers you say that aren't in play, well for the amateurs many are unfortunately. For pros no most are not. Without a caddie it is very hard to find your ball there. Not quite as tight as RCD, but the fescue can camouflage most errant balls.
It is Mr. Kohler's creation and they did soften it some IIRC since it opened. I'm sure the USGA would salivate at what they could do to WS and thankfully they haven't been able to experiment with that.

[Sean_A]

Jeff,
WS has a ton of bunkers that certainly aren’t in play but they are in view and part of what Pete was trying to do was make the golfer think the whole area was natural.  If only the golf holes/corridors are trying to look “like Ireland” which was the design intent, then the site will definitely look manufactured.  Just think of Sand Hills didn’t have all those natural blowouts surrounding it?  If the surrounding area were flat potato fields Sand Hills would look manufactured too. 


Koehler knew it was going to cost a fortune to build and maintain but to him so be it.  To some cost is not an issue whether we agree with it or not. 


Where I tend to have an issue with too many bunkers is on courses where maintenance costs ARE a big concern AND where the extra bunkers are mostly penal in nature primarily for higher handicap golfers. 


We have used the term “dumbed down” in the past on this site especially when it comes to public golf courses.  This happens when architects purposely make a course easier and less interesting.  I don’t believe in dumbing down a course just to lower maintenance costs and speed up play.  I believe in “clevering up” courses instead.  You do this by making the course more interesting and thought provoking for better golfers and at the same time a more enjoyable experience for those not as accomplished. This can be done in many ways with grassing lines, approaches, green expansions, mounding, short grass, trees, teeing areas, …, as well as proper use of bunkers.

Whistling Straits is silly with sand which in truth makes the course look obviously manufactured. Mind you, because the course is designed with sharp levels loads of bunkers are saving. I would rather see quite a few combined just to break up the proximity of squiggly lines which makes me a bit dizzy.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()