Should a course have a signature bunker?

[Anthony Gray]

 There are a few the cardinal at prestwick, hell at TOC, Big Bertha at The Honors, Kavanaugh’s kidney at Victoria National, Devil’s Arse at Pine Valley, and the church pews at Oakmont. Etc.


 These bunkers/traps and to the ambiance of the course. Bonus points for quirk and variety. They are on holes you look forward to when you are lacing up the spikes.




 I think every course should have the memorable sand pit.


 I like to play into these things for the experience. Keep your score if you may, I’m going to gather my rose buds while I play.


 Do we want a signature bunker?


 Anthony

[Michael Felton]

Two of those courses have other bunkers that are certainly in the running for the signature bunker. Hell's Half Acre at Pine Valley and several at TOC (Strath, Principal's Nose, Road Hole bunker for example). Then there are courses with some pretty spectacular bunkering (I'm thinking the big one on the 4th at Bethpage Black or the 4th at RSG), but they're not named, so it doesn't really work.


I think going into a design project planning on making a signature bunker is probably not a great idea. If the course winds up with a stand out one, then so be it. If you want to have one, pick one and publicize it and people will catch on.

[Mark_Fine]

Of course not. Royal Ashdown Forest doesn’t have any bunkers so it would fail immediately. 


I have never cared for the idea of signature holes or signature anything but I do believe the best holes all have a distinctive feature that makes them interesting and memorable.  The better the hole the more distinctive the feature.  Sometimes it is a bunker, sometimes it is a green surface or a wall or a beach or a knob or a tree or a swale or road or a pond or a carry or a ….   


Hard to name a great hole that doesn’t have something special and memorable about it. 

[Anthony Gray]

Two of those courses have other bunkers that are certainly in the running for the signature bunker. Hell's Half Acre at Pine Valley and several at TOC (Strath, Principal's Nose, Road Hole bunker for example). Then there are courses with some pretty spectacular bunkering (I'm thinking the big one on the 4th at Bethpage Black or the 4th at RSG), but they're not named, so it doesn't really work.


I think going into a design project planning on making a signature bunker is probably not a great idea. If the course winds up with a stand out one, then so be it. If you want to have one, pick one and publicize it and people will catch on.

 Of course no absolutes. But there are bunkers out there that you want your photo taken beside or in. And bunkers you through a ball in to have the experience of playing out Those would qualify.

[Anthony Gray]

Of course not. Royal Ashdown Forest doesn’t have any bunkers so it would fail immediately. 


I have never cared for the idea of signature holes or signature anything but I do believe the best holes all have a distinctive feature that makes them interesting and memorable.  The better the hole the more distinctive the feature.  Sometimes it is a bunker, sometimes it is a green surface or a wall or a beach or a knob or a tree or a swale or road or a pond or a carry or a ….   


Hard to name a great hole that doesn’t have something special and memorable about it.

 Again Mike no absolutes. But I’m thinking more about courses that are better than the food at the restaurant. I think you “distinctive feature that makes them interesting and memorable”  would apply to something with sand in it.

[Ira Fishman]

Of course not. Royal Ashdown Forest doesn’t have any bunkers so it would fail immediately. 


I have never cared for the idea of signature holes or signature anything but I do believe the best holes all have a distinctive feature that makes them interesting and memorable.  The better the hole the more distinctive the feature.  Sometimes it is a bunker, sometimes it is a green surface or a wall or a beach or a knob or a tree or a swale or road or a pond or a carry or a ….   


Hard to name a great hole that doesn’t have something special and memorable about it.

For once, I almost agree completely with Mark (not that he or anyone else should really care about that fact). I have viewed signature holes as either a marketing ploy and/or a concept that distracts from looking at the course as a narrative whole.


I do disagree that a great hole needs a memorable feature. On the Par 4 thread, there were several holes that are great without having a particularly distinctive feature.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
That is twice now in less then a week that you almost agreed with me.  This is becoming a trend 


Curious which great par fours didn’t have anything special or distinctive about them?
Remember not every great hole has to be dramatic to be great.  Sometimes it is something subtle that makes a hole special and standout and that is what is distinctive and memorable. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Maybe in the old days, before so many photographers and everyone with a colour camera, a striking/signature bunker 'read' better than an interesting green contour, especially in black and white.

And also, before carts, when they weren't routing to hilltops for elevated tees and the money shot, a signature bunker could come in very handy!

[Tom_Doak]

Ira,
That is twice now in less then a week that you almost agreed with me.  This is becoming a trend 

He is slipping to the dark side! 


I will let you both argue with C.B. Macdonald:


"To my mind, an ideal course should have at least six bold bunkers like the Alps at Prestwick, the Ninth at Brancaster, Sahara or Maiden at Sandwich, and the Sixteenth at Littleton.  Such bold bunkers should be a t the end of a two-shot hole or a very long carry from the tee."


I'm betting Macdonald would have out-argued either of you.

[Ronald Montesano]

I don't believe that a course need market a signature anything. That should not stop it from having a signature everything. I suspect that those who make a living marketing the signature elements of a particular course, are not golfers.


I love knowing that certain hazards, angle, contours are present on a course, and I love the anticipation that comes with arriving at their challenge. I don't believe the intent of this thread was to reduce elements to just one.

[Anthony Gray]

 Looks like this thread may slip into another English lesson. Thank god I didn’t say iconic.


 Next thread I may quote Shakespeare or The Jetson’s dog so it won’t go off the rails with semantics.


This question deals with golf course architecture and not a dictionary.


 Chose your adjective of choice. Iconic, signature, quirky, gimmicky, bold, memorable, unforgettable, transcending, archetypal, epochal, exemplary, historic, recognizable,~ paradigmatic , etc.


 
 A bunker that demands a name


 A bunker that demands a selfie


 A bunker that it immediately recognizable


 A must play bunker


You can show me 10 photos of oakmont and I may can guess it. But show me one photo of the church pews and I will get it. That’s what the question is intended to explore.


 And the hell with MARKETING. This is about the golf experience. That one bunker you can’t wait to get to. Can’t wait to see in person. Can’t wait to challenge. Can’t wait to take a selfie in with your shirt off. That kind of architecture.


 Would you like to see at least one of those on your course?

[Thomas Dai]

Given rakes and maintenance practices and the softening of the RoG how sand bunkers have become devalued over the decades perhaps an alternative is “Should a course have a signature bunker obstacle?”.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

What I dislike with bunkering is when a renovation makes them all a similar size (particularly if they are “natural” edged).


By extension, that makes me believe that a couple of signature bunkers (or at least scary, large ones) are definitely something to consider.

[Tom_Doak]

You can show me 10 photos of oakmont and I may can guess it. But show me one photo of the church pews and I will get it. That’s what the question is intended to explore.

 And the hell with MARKETING. This is about the golf experience. That one bunker you can’t wait to get to. Can’t wait to see in person. Can’t wait to challenge. Can’t wait to take a selfie in with your shirt off. That kind of architecture.

Anthony:


I am sympathetic with your argument, but good luck trying to get MARKETING out of modern golf.


As an example, there are at least a dozen courses in China which have some version of the Church Pews bunker, and probably a couple where if I showed you the picture you'd guess the wrong continent.  So, the real answer to your question is that a course should have a character of its own.  Sometimes a big bunker is the answer there, but if every course had them, they wouldn't be so special. 

[Mark_Fine]

Macdonald obviously had a flare for the bold and dramatic.  I am surprised he didn’t think more highly of himself 
I would have to think through all his courses but I wonder how many of his designs he would consider “ideal” based on his definition?  Probably all of them    He clearly loved bunkers. 

When Tom Doak starts talking about his signature holes and signature bunkers on his designs (and calling them that) then we will really know who slipped to the dark side 


Again, sometimes it is a bunker that is a great hole’s most distinctive feature.  And sometimes it is something else.

[Anthony Gray]

You can show me 10 photos of oakmont and I may can guess it. But show me one photo of the church pews and I will get it. That’s what the question is intended to explore.

 And the hell with MARKETING. This is about the golf experience. That one bunker you can’t wait to get to. Can’t wait to see in person. Can’t wait to challenge. Can’t wait to take a selfie in with your shirt off. That kind of architecture.

Anthony:


I am sympathetic with your argument, but good luck trying to get MARKETING out of modern golf.


As an example, there are at least a dozen courses in China which have some version of the Church Pews bunker, and probably a couple where if I showed you the picture you'd guess the wrong continent.  So, the real answer to your question is that a course should have a character of its own.  Sometimes a big bunker is the answer there, but if every course had them, they wouldn't be so special. 

 Thank you Tom. I love the green side bunker at 6 on pacific dunes. Seems it was bigger when I first played it and now has more grass around it and in it.  That  bunker should have a name. The first time I -payed that hole I saw a huge fairway and let go. Only to find myself having to go over that bunker. I though “got me”. The fairway width suckered me in to hitting it down there. Second shot went in the bunker. Third shot didn’t escape it. Fourth shot went over the green. It needs a name.

[Peter Pallotta]

Anthony - I think your post #10 was the first time I've ever seen you angry around here. So to carefully answer your specific question:

Would I like to see at least one of those [i.e the kind of bunker your describe] on your course? Yes. Because a bunker striking and severe enough to qualify couldn't help but reinforce the strategic imperatives of the design.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
That is twice now in less then a week that you almost agreed with me.  This is becoming a trend 

He is slipping to the dark side! 


I will let you both argue with C.B. Macdonald:


"To my mind, an ideal course should have at least six bold bunkers like the Alps at Prestwick, the Ninth at Brancaster, Sahara or Maiden at Sandwich, and the Sixteenth at Littleton.  Such bold bunkers should be a t the end of a two-shot hole or a very long carry from the tee."


I'm betting Macdonald would have out-argued either of you.

Mark,


The first one must have been after 5:00.


Tom,


I am all for bold bunkers even if they have a template element to them. I just do not like the idea of signature holes because they focus on the one versus the 18. My guess is that Number 7 has become the signature hole at SS Blue. Great hole even though I couldn't cross the bridge. But Number 8 is one of the best holes that I have played, and the sequence from 14-18 is stellar.


Ira

[Quinn Thompson]

The problem with "quotes", and America, and G'alf in the States[size=78%] is that it's all so young.[/size]



As a man once famously said to me in a pub in Connemara: " This Pub is older than you're Country..."


I'll never forget that - it was so much more than what he meant.

[Matt_Cohn]

A signature bunker is likely to be quite deep and penalizing. A penalizing bunker is more likely to make for an interesting golf hole than a shallow bunker that’s easy to escape and therefore not influential on strategy or mindset. So I guess a signature bunker isn’t all bad.

[Anthony Gray]

The problem with "quotes", and America, and G'alf in the States[size=78%] is that it's all so young.[/size]



As a man once famously said to me in a pub in Connemara: " This Pub is older than you're Country..."


I'll never forget that - it was so much more than what he meant.

 This is excellent. What was his point.

[Tim Martin]

Does anyone have more recognizable fairway bunkers at least in the U.S. than Tillinghast? Those that don’t remember all the holes on a specific course won’t soon forget the “great hazard”.

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony - I think your post #10 was the first time I've ever seen you angry around here. So to carefully answer your specific question:

Would I like to see at least one of those [i.e the kind of bunker your describe] on your course? Yes. Because a bunker striking and severe enough to qualify couldn't help but reinforce the strategic imperatives of the design.

 Thank you Peter and well relieved. I hate watching a thread get highjacked over semantics. It’s nice to be back.

[Philippe Binette]

Maybe not necessarily a bunker... but i believe a course must have at least one "scary" shot over or close to a hazard


It has to have a shot that you can't wait to hit and at the same time get you thinking 3-4 holes prior...


A bunker or hazard where " [size=78%] no good score is safe until you dealt with the hazard...[/size]


M

[Gib_Papazian]

True story:

Years ago, Naccarato came to #10 at PV and asked his caddy how far it was.


His caddy pulled a 7-iron and Tommy waved him off, grabbing an 8 instead.


"That is not enough to get over the Devil's Asshole," said the sensible bag toter.


The response: "Do you think I flew all the way across the country *not* to play out of that bunker?"


Who could possibly resist tossing a couple balls in the Road Bunker and giving it a try? You think my first go-round at Oakmont I was not dying to do the same in the Church Pews? 


The problem is not that this or that course has individually notable features - Principal's Nose et. al - it is the pejorative calling it a "signature" element.


Look, I love NYC (what is left of it, after DiBlasio) as a whole, but the notable landmarks provide unique and notable demarcation points along the way - just like the island green in Florida.


The problem with the word "signature" is it suggests something non-organic, added as an egocentric homage to the designer. Pete Dye had "signature elements" that shrieked of his style, but then again, so did Raynor.


Interesting, given I've got a solid grasp of (for example) TD and C&C's work, I cannot honestly identify a single repeated element . . . . or something that screams "look at what a cool thing I added in, doesn't it look like me?"


Some required serious juevos to insist upon to the client, but their "signature" elements are really rooted in avoiding any discernible signature. Jeff Bradley's bunkers are fabulously naturalistic, but I never look at one and think "he nicked that idea from such and such course."


I'm not sure which is better, but everything is context. Years ago, somebody came up with the notion of building a Church Pews bunker on our Ocean Course (Olympic) and it was laughably out of place . . . . a ham-handed pastiche that said more about a retarded Green Chair than the bunker itself.