[Rob Marshall]

So my golf course plays par 71, 6400 from the white tees and 6700 from the back tees. Most holes the difference between the tees is 10 to 15 yards and on couple its 30 to 40. When you have tees fairly close together how do you make fairway bunkers challenging for players of all levels. The longer players at my club don’t even know we have fairway bunkers.


Is the solution to have multiple bunkers? One at 230 and another out at 270. Should some holes have bunkers that only affect a long hitter and some just shorter hitters? How do you get a balance where everyone is challenged at some point?

[Michael Felton]

When I go play tournaments around me, I'll go on google maps and take a look at each hole at the course I'm going to play and take a look at how I want to play them. Every time there are bunkers at around 250-280 on virtually every hole. That means I have to contend with the fairway bunkers on every hole. Meanwhile the people who are 20-30 yards longer than me don't have to worry about them at all. I would much rather there was a range and some holes they're at 280-310 and others they're at 210-240 and others 250-270 etc, so everyone has some they can carry, some they can't and some they can't even reach (for the shorter players at least). I don't know that you need any at sub-200 because the people who can't hit it 210 are likely going to have to worry about the 280-310 ones with their second shots and I don't know that punishing people who aren't very good is a good idea.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I don't know that you need any at sub-200 because the people who can't hit it 210 are likely going to have to worry about the 280-310 ones with their second shots and I don't know that punishing people who aren't very good very long is a good idea.

[Mark_Fine]

Rob,
Entire books written about hazards and hazard placement, as there is too much to discuss in a post or two but what I will say is that balance and variety are very important factors.  Maybe on one hole the fairway bunkers don’t impact the better player as much as the weaker golfer but on that same hole there is some other hazard or design feature that takes over as the leading actor.  This kind of theme can occur throughout the golf course.  Honestly on many courses I see or work on, the hazards primarily punish weaker golfers and have little if any strategic value for more accomplished players.  In some ways this makes sense as the better golf has much more control of their golf ball and certain hazards just won’t come into play that often if ever for them.  But balance and variety in my mind are key.  As you say, we want interest and thought provoking golf for all levels of play. 

[Thomas Dai]

A place to start would be to have fairway length grass around any bunkers so a ball will roll into them as well as flying into them.
Atb

[Rob Marshall]

A place to start would be to have fairway length grass around any bunkers so a ball will roll into them as well as flying into them.
Atb

I was told you can’t do that. The fairway grass along the edge of the bunkers will die. Is that not the case?

[Michael Felton]

A place to start would be to have fairway length grass around any bunkers so a ball will roll into them as well as flying into them.
Atb

I was told you can’t do that. The fairway grass along the edge of the bunkers will die. Is that not the case?

I was playing at the Bridge last week and they had plenty of spots where fairway grass went right up to bunker edges (sharp edges too) and the grass looked perfectly healthy. They do have I imagine significant budget to put towards keeping it in such a state, but it's definitely possible.

[mike_malone]

Relating bunkers to tees is a hopeless pursuit. Forget it. Place bunkers for different reasons.

[Rob Marshall]

A place to start would be to have fairway length grass around any bunkers so a ball will roll into them as well as flying into them.
Atb

I was told you can’t do that. The fairway grass along the edge of the bunkers will die. Is that not the case?

I was playing at the Bridge last week and they had plenty of spots where fairway grass went right up to bunker edges (sharp edges too) and the grass looked perfectly healthy. They do have I imagine significant budget to put towards keeping it in such a state, but it's definitely possible.

Thanks for the reply Michael, that was told to me by our architect who posts here. Maybe I miss understood. If that’s the case, why don’t we see it very often?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Everybody hits it different distances, you can't cater for ALL.


You can consider does anyone who hits under 200 really need to worry about fairway bunkers.


Consider bunkers at 275 from the back tees but more in a range of 250-300 so they are not all the same.


Does the course warrant bunkers at more than 300.


Does wind have much influence on the course, so one day a bunker may be in range but not on another.

[Rob Marshall]

“Everybody hits it different distances, you can't cater for ALL.“




So you put all the bunkers 230-250 and ignore the young guys who are carrying the ball 260++?

[Jim_Coleman]

You can consider does anyone who hits under 200 really need to worry

   The short hitter needs to worry when the only fairway bunker on a straight 375 yard hole requires a 210 yard shot to carry but will catch a faded shot hit between 170 and 210 yards. That’s what I would call a poorly placed bunker affecting only the weaker player.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Different on different types of courses.


But on a links where you are dealing with so many variables because of wind and firmness, it’s best to pick a general strategy for a hole and then just place the bunkers where they best fit in to a natural roll or swale in the land…. You’ll usually find it works itself out in to a mix / variety for different players at different distances in different weather.

[Pete Lavallee]

I often wonder whether the magical 250 mark for fairway bunkers came from the persimmon era when most good players hit it that far; few seemed to eclipse that and the thinking was probably more power to them if they could. Does the 250 yard pinch still work to control scoring; certainly not for those who have played college golf and there are really a lot of those players out there. Really there are two kinds of courses: ones that try to pinch fairways for the better player from the back tees and then those whose bunkers are placed according to the landscape, which surely provides more variety. I know which course I would prefer to play!

[Niall C]

“Everybody hits it different distances, you can't cater for ALL.“




So you put all the bunkers 230-250 and ignore the young guys who are carrying the ball 260++?

Rob


Adrian can no doubt answer for himself and might do if he reads this but FWIW when I read his post and that particular line, I thought he should have added something like "you can't cater for all playing off the same tee with the same bunker". Then for me, the question becomes should you have multiple tees so that the bunker plays the same way for everyone (assuming they play of the "correct" tee) or should we just accept that bunkers and hazards in general play differently for everyone and not concern ourselves with putting in umpteen tees so that a particular bunker gets to challenge everyone in the same way. Harking back to the Longleaf thread from a wee while ago, I'm clearly for the second option.


Niall

[Jim_Coleman]

Rob


Adrian can no doubt answer for himself and might do if he reads this but FWIW when I read his post and that particular line, I thought he should have added something like "you can't cater for all playing off the same tee with the same bunker". Then for me, the question becomes should you have multiple tees so that the bunker plays the same way for everyone (assuming they play of the "correct" tee) or should we just accept that bunkers and hazards in general play differently for everyone and not concern ourselves with putting in umpteen tees so that a particular bunker gets to challenge everyone in the same way. Harking back to the Longleaf thread from a wee while ago, I'm clearly for the second option.


Niall




Niall:


   You’re right; that is the choice. I’d vote for using tee length to make the same bunker work for all players. There are obviously exceptions. Sometimes that won’t be possible. Also, not all bunkers are solely penal. Many are aesthetic, and it’s the aesthetic ones that provide much of the beauty. The best ones do both.

[Rob Marshall]

Personally I think we should add second bunkers on holes out at 280+- . We don't have  a lot of room to add new tees on the holes with the existing fairway bunkers. Without doing that and with our tree removal program the bombers can drive it anywhere and the shorter hitters (220-240 carry) are playing a different course.

[Niall C]

Jim


What do you then do for the next shot ? You clearly can't have everyone move their ball to a position where the next bunker will play the same for everyone. Perhaps the best approach with bunkering is not to worry too much about the numbers, use them sparingly and mainly where they fit in in terms of the topography. At the very least such an approach should produce variety.


Niall

[Robin_Hiseman]

At The Oxfordshire, Rees Jones tackled this problem by having bunkers 130 yards long. Genius!

[Mark_Fine]

Robin,
Care to take a guess what a 130 yard long bunker costs to build and then maintain 


Less can be more and remember course and weather conditions can drastically change how different features like bunkers play. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sure Mark, it’s not just Rees Jones. Many modern designers are building 130 yard long bunkers (sometimes 450 yards on both sides) so it must be the only solution….


…Moving on, Niall’s last point reiterates what I was getting at. Any architect who gets too hung up on the numbers, designing bunkers around a 250-300 yard “turning point” over and over is surely going to design a less interesting and - if on good topography - less natural feeling golf course.

[Sean_A]

Sure Mark, it’s not just Rees Jones. Almost all modern designers are building 130 yard long bunkers (sometimes 450 yards on both sides) these days so it must be the only solution….


…Moving on, Niall’s last point reiterates what I was getting at. Any architect who gets too hung up on the numbers, designing bunkers around a 250-300 yard “turning point” over and over is surely going to design a less interesting and - if on good topography - less natural feeling golf course.

Over the long haul… yer not wrong Ally 👊.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Maybe the solution is not to have the fairway bunkers at all?
More humps and bumps and entertaining contours covered in short grass?

Atb

[Simon Barrington]

Sure Mark, it’s not just Rees Jones. Almost all modern designers are building 130 yard long bunkers (sometimes 450 yards on both sides) these days so it must be the only solution….

…Moving on, Niall’s last point reiterates what I was getting at. Any architect who gets too hung up on the numbers, designing bunkers around a 250-300 yard “turning point” over and over is surely going to design a less interesting and - if on good topography - less natural feeling golf course.

Over the long haul… yer not wrong Ally 👊.

Ciao

Agree, Pete Dye also saw the problem coming and used long side hazards on several of his designs.

However, simply focusing on any one group of players, especially only the minority of the longest players is inevitably a fools errand.

At my home club of Henley GC (Oxon) in 1994 they took out a number of second shot hazards, that didn't affect the longest players, to put in traps further back to challenge these same players. Now those newer hazards are superfluous (to that group) and they are looking to add hazards at the same distance and place as the ones removed in 1994! What was second shot defence for the average player is now drive defence for the longest.

All that expensive and circular activity is a prime example of economic waste as expoused by Dr. Mackenzie in "Golf Architecture".

Additionally, a largely ineffective member of our Green Committee uttered the following potentially prescient statement (even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally):
"If we move all our bunkers to challenge the longest players and the R&A/USGA actually get a grip and do a really telling rollback of both ball and clubs, then will we simply have to move all these back again?"

Unless a genuinely Tournament or Open Championship Course, variety and randomness in bunker positons based upon the land infront of one is IMHO by far the best way forward. Design to the 95% not the 5%.

[mike_malone]

Maybe the solution is not to have the fairway bunkers at all?
More humps and bumps and entertaining contours covered in short grass?

Atb

Flynn suggested that these bunkers should provide a problem and give you a mode of play. So bunkers should mostly be a visual issue.


So do we want visual clues or not?


Obviously variety is best. So I’m for some bunkers but would be in favor of the land being the hazard or some grassing ideas where you have a shot and find your ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()