Merits of the centerline bunker

[Matthew Lloyd]

I am seeking good explanations - or "defenses" - of why centerline bunkers can be great design features. While I'm a huge fan of this feature (especially in the current era of mammoth drives), it seems like my understanding of why is probably too simple.


My assumption is that the centerline bunker feature is best employed on short (often drivable) par 4s to make the long hitter think twice about going for the green; or on par 5s to add a risk/reward element to the drive on a reachable par 5 - or closer to the green as an obstacle for a hybrid/wood to run up to the green in two. I'm sure there are other uses of the feature - but on courses where I've encountered them these two scenarios feel the most common.


What prompted me to post this question here on this board is a long 36 hole day at Prairie Club (Dunes) last summer. I loved the course (and the centerline bunkers!) but it was fascinating to watch the guy I was playing with (a much stronger player than I am) spend the majority of his day pitching out of fairway bunkers after hitting 300 yard drives dead straight against crosswinds gusting up to 25 mph. Earlier in the day I had purchased a Winston headcover for my driver at the club - and to give you an idea of how well this guy was driving the ball - I decided to give him the headcover after the round. He had more than earned it.


And while he loved the course, he was rattled by ending up in seemingly every centerline bunker off the tee (playing from the back tees at about 7500 yards).  He was most severely punished on the par 5 3rd. His logic was simple: why should I be punished for hitting a perfectly straight drive that goes between 270-300 yards?


Since I loved the design my defense was that the course had the widest fairways we had ever seen (so there was plenty of room to navigate around them); and the intent of the bunkers was to make you think about hitting a different club off the tee - or to truly have to risk it in going for a green in two. He grudgingly accepted this rationale but still felt like he got robbed.


This summer I'm returning to The Prairie Club with a different player who drives the ball equally well - it will be interesting to see if the same dilemma repeats itself.


But back to the original point of the post: if you're also a fan of the centerline bunker feature, what reasoning would you use in explaining why it can be a great design and add to the experience? That's really the rhetoric that I'm looking for.


On a personal note, my most common battle with a centerline bunker is #8 at Kingsley. After 20+ years of playing the hole I'm still undecided on what to do most rounds.

[Sean_A]

For me the me the easy answer is there are four distinct ways to cope with a true centreline bunker, over, short, right or left. No other type of bunker offers more distinct options.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

Often they narrow the preferred route to the green while offering a fairway alternative. I have seen rough used for this. Usually it is when there is a higher fairway and a lower fairway. Kelly Blake Moran did it at his Easton, Pa. course (Morgan Hill).

[Matt Schoolfield]

I have posted here before about Luck as part of hole design and have written more formally on my blog.

Centerline bunkers add an element of luck/risk (they are effectively two side of uncertainty) to a golf hole. Where the Fair Police get things wrong is that they see luck and skill as in opposition to each other. Luck and skill are both elements of games that have different influence on who the winner will be. Obviously games that are completely luck (Bingo) are not very fun, but games of only skill (say, a game of who's tallest) are also not very fun. Different games make players interact with different levels of luck and skill; e.g.:

Bingo: high-luck, low-skill

Tic-tac-toe: low-luck, low-skill

Chess: low-luck, high-skill

Poker: high-luck, high-skill

This paradigm can be directly parallel to famous golf holes, and I make those comparisons in my essay:

#8, The Postage Stamp, Royal Troon: high-luck, low-skill

#5 Bethpage Black: low-luck, high-skill

#17, Road, St Andrews: high-luck, high-skill

If golf is just "hit it long and straight" then we should be satisfied with "playing golf" by taking turns at the range. Golf, however, is get it in the hole in the fewest strokes possible, and that leaves plenty of room for strategic decision-making, tradeoffs, risky bets, and just plain bad luck. The centerline bunker just forces those decisions on people who would rather not make them.

[Ken Moum]

My rationale for liking the idea is the same as it is for other "controversial " features.


They are a complete mind-f_ck for golfers who like to play on autopilot.


Any  feature, hole location or contour that make a straightforward approach risky, or dumb, is a good thing in my book.

[Craig Sweet]

If I was driving into every center line bunker I would hit something other than my driver. I'm a fast learner and not an egotist.

[Thomas Dai]

For me the me the easy answer is there are four distinct ways to cope with a true centreline bunker, over, short, right or left. No other type of bunker offers more distinct options.
Ciao

Bingo!
And if a thoughtless golfer hits their shot into one, well, tough, diddums.
atb

[MCirba]

He didn't drive the ball well if he kept hitting it into centerline bunkers, even if he hit it solidly with high club head speed.


Love that course, as well.

[Mark Pearce]

He didn't drive the ball well if he kept hitting it into centerline bunkers, even if he hit it solidly with high club head speed.

This.  Unless these hazards are blind off the tee, your partner isn't very smart.

[Jeff Schley]

I like a centerline bunker maybe once on a course. There are many examples of water hazards that must be flown over, the bunker at least saves the penalty shot. I think when one hits the fairway they should be rewarded, but hte occasional hazard to pause pulling the headcover off your driver is part of golf IMO.

[Ben Sims]

One of my favorite aspects of Old Barnwell is how Brian and Blake have something to mess up the line of charm on all but maybe two of the tee shots. It’s endlessly fun. Among several calling cards, I consider this a main feature of other courses under the Renaissance umbrella.


I see multiple ways to threaten shots in the line of charm: diagonal carries, partial cross bunkers reaching into the line of charm, lumpy terrain in the landing area, blind bunkers, and centerline bunkers. Of those, centerline seem to be the one with the most options for avoidance and for that reason, perhaps the simplest for me. Why?


I just aim right at the them.


Brian asked me on 9 tee at OB what I was trying to do. I said I wanted to pop a 7 iron out there to the right of the centerline bunker in the crest of the hill. But because I’m a fade hitter, I was aiming right at that bunker and hit an equator special. Thing knuckled like Phil Niekro and somehow it missed the hazard. This speaks to what Matt was schooling us on earlier, the element of luck with centerline bunkers.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

Presuming this playing partner was a friend, did you ever ask him why he kept taking on the center-lines?  I agree with the previous posts asking why he didn't adapt, seems to be the golf equivalent of "if hitting your hand with a hammer hurts, stop doing it"

For me, the reason I enjoy features like this is the architect presents you with options, which may potentially lead to a variety of decisions based on say: how well you're playing that day, wind conditions, are you feeling confident, match play vs stroke, etc.  In golf course architecture variety and choices aka different ways to skin the cat are the spice of life.

[Michael Felton]

I have posted here before about Luck as part of hole design and have written more formally on my blog.

Centerline bunkers add an element of luck/risk (they are effectively two side of uncertainty) to a golf hole. Where the Fair Police get things wrong is that they see luck and skill as in opposition to each other. Luck and skill are both elements of games that have different influence on who the winner will be. Obviously games that are completely luck (Bingo) are not very fun, but games of only skill (say, a game of who's tallest) are also not very fun. Different games make players interact with different levels of luck and skill; e.g.:

Bingo: high-luck, low-skill

Tic-tac-toe: low-luck, low-skill

Chess: low-luck, high-skill

Poker: high-luck, high-skill

This paradigm can be directly parallel to famous golf holes, and I make those comparisons in my essay:

#8, The Postage Stamp, Royal Troon: high-luck, low-skill

#5 Bethpage Black: low-luck, high-skill

#17, Road, St Andrews: high-luck, high-skill

If golf is just "hit it long and straight" then we should be satisfied with "playing golf" by taking turns at the range. Golf, however, is get it in the hole in the fewest strokes possible, and that leaves plenty of room for strategic decision-making, tradeoffs, risky bets, and just plain bad luck. The centerline bunker just forces those decisions on people who would rather not make them.

That's an interesting way to put it. Centerline bunkers, depending on how large the bunker is and how wide the fairway is are pretty high on the luck content.


Take 13 at Bethpage Red. The bunker is very large and the fairway on both sides is narrow. That's really more like two small fairways to pick between. Left side is treelined, but gives a much better angle, while the right side is just rough if you miss right, but then you're playing over the greenside bunker to a fairly shallow green. Not an easy shot if you're in the rough. Easier than the chip out from the trees though. I don't think there is much luck involved on this one. If I'm playing for fun, I'll go for the left fairway. If I'm playing in a tournament, I'll typically play short of it and just deal with the longer approach. Mostly skill. It's a really pretty bad shot to aim for one side and hit the other.


Then there's a hole like 13 at Friar's Head, which has a 65 yard wide fairway with two pretty small bunkers right in the middle of it. My issue with this is if those bunkers are carryable, then it's not a problem at all. If you can't reach, then it's not a problem at all. If you happen to fall in the window in between where you can reach, but can't clear them, then you either have to lay up and give up some advantage to your opponent, or you have to take a chance. Given the size of them, the optimal play is probably to aim at them and hope that you miss by a little bit. If you do that and go in them, that's infuriating, but as with so many things golf, infuriating is part of the fun. Pretty high luck, although either side is almost wide enough to just aim at one side or the other.


Last example I can think of is the 4th at Walton Heath Old. That bunker is about 10 yards wide and the heather to heather is about 45 yards across. Aiming at one side or the other will put you in the heather too much, so you either go for it and hope (where Friar's has maybe 10-15% of the space is bunker, Walton it's more like 20-25% and the fairway is narrower too) or you lay up. That hole, laying up means you've got a long way in for your second, so laying up is probably giving up too much. That means going for it with all that the corresponding luck entails. Either way - this gives so much advantage to the player who is long enough to clear it while punishing the player who can reach, but not clear it. Missing that bunker if you're at that point is high luck and low skill. Either side is too narrow to squeeze it down reliably.


I think long story short I'm okay with it as long as it's not overdone. If I played a course where I hit it in a bunch of centerline bunkers I'd think that was a bit much. That guy must have been very unlucky to hit it in so many of them.

[Tommy Williamsen]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0,
This is number three at Cabot Cliffs. From the tees I played it is 240 over the bunker. The ground to the right of the bunker is the same height as the green, but if you drive it too far left, you have a blind shot into the green. I hit it to the right of the bunker, which is much lower than the green. Distance control was difficult. The right side of the green runs away from the green. Miss it by a little, and you miss it by a lot. My playing partner hit it farther than I did. He drove it past the bunker on the left and had an easy shot into the green

[Matt_Cohn]

Are the bunkers at a wide variety of distances off the tea? I imagine that if I were dealing with centerline bunkers all day, while anyone 20 yards shorter or longer than me never had to interact with them, I would get pretty annoyed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My term for centerline bunkers is "a dual fw hole."  While the 4 options are true enough, they come with caveats IMHO.


The layup option is the only predictable one.


Carrying it?  Depending on tee and hazard placement, the carry option is only realistically available to a small subset of players.  When I did that, I made it a challenge for the back tee players, maybe a 280-290 yard carry, while arranging middle tees where the carry is typically substantially easier, to make it fun, i.e., from tees where I expected players with 225 drives and 200+ carry, place the hazards at 190 max from the back of their tees, so the max test of carry distance can be achieved, but where it easier on most days.


Left and right options?  Unless there are fairways on both sides with statistically adequate width, i.e, 30 yards, that won't really be an option, i.e., two separate fairways.  I do agree that any shortest route should have a slightly narrower landing zone, like 25-27 yards, so taking it requires the best accuracy you have, while the longer route should be substantially wider, even with a longer approach shot.


I also agree with no more than 2 per course - I don't see it as such a great idea that you would need it more than twice in favor os other tee shot hazard placements.  As suggested, the tee shot on a shorter par 4 to create interest, and the second shot on a par 5, where the alternate fairways may provide an angle advantage, driving the hazard is required to reach the green in 2, and/or laying up increases approach shot distance considerably.  If the approach is still under 150 from behind the bunker, it probably doesn't matter much, but going from 100 something to over 150 might make a difference.  That suggests CL bunkers in those areas may need to be a bit longer to accommodate the various positions of different tee shot results.


Tommy's example of the green running away from you might make as much sense as avoiding frontal hazards, depending on the approach shot length.  However, from that picture, I wouldn't anticipate too many people going left....the right is just too inviting and shorter.  I may be wrong judging on a picture, of course, but I am suggesting that the details of placement, if not done close to perfectly, may make the centerline just annoying and reduce its design effectiveness.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Are the bunkers at a wide variety of distances off the tea? I imagine that if I were dealing with centerline bunkers all day, while anyone 20 yards shorter or longer than me never had to interact with them, I would get pretty annoyed.

If you are really long, you'd play a different tee, and it would be 260 over the bunker. The far left bunker is out of reach for players, unless you are on the TOUR. I don't know any course where the player encounters what you described.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Personally, I think we have definition problems among most posts here. It is very clear for me:


A “cross bunker” is one which is primarily penal because the only sensible options are layup or carry.


A “centreline bunker” needs to have options to go left or right with one of those sides the same width as an average course’s fairway (over 30 yards) and the other option still being viable (over 20 yards).


If it is just a bunker on the line of charm but clearly on one side of the mown fairway, it is neither.

[Matt_Cohn]

Are the bunkers at a wide variety of distances off the tea? I imagine that if I were dealing with centerline bunkers all day, while anyone 20 yards shorter or longer than me never had to interact with them, I would get pretty annoyed.

If you are really long, you'd play a different tee, and it would be 260 over the bunker. The far left bunker is out of reach for players, unless you are on the TOUR. I don't know any course where the player encounters what you described.

Pardon, I was talking about Prairie Club referenced in the original post, where the player seemed to be dealing with this on many holes.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I will add that, while I have no strategic issue with them, I tend to see plain, centerline bunkers as a bit too obvious. I think that's why people don't like them. It's creates a, sort of like, "now why would you go and do that..." response to the architect. To illustrate this point, let's take Michael's example of #13 at Bethpage Red:



There is very obviously no way around this thing, and it's also very obvious that that's the point. The player will see this and be annoyed that they must deal with a hazard that the architect forced on them.

In contrast, I prefer a centerline bunker masquerading as a non-centerline bunker; e.g. Corner of the Dyke:



While it appears to be a left side bunker, it is actually a centerline bunker. This allows the thoughtful player to see the golf hole in a different way than mow lines would suggest; the architect didn't force this on them, the player was just clever enough to see a novel line of play! Instead of being annoyed, the player is clever. But don't take my word for it:

The bunker in the middle of the fairway is an especially controversial topic… The par-4 16th hole at St. Andrews, defended by a cluster of fairway bunkers known as the Principal’s Nose, is the classic example… The weakest players do not worry because they will not reach the central hazard with their drives; others will aim straight at it, confident that their usual inaccuracy will prevent them from harm. For the accomplished golfer, the key to the hole is the green, oriented so that the approach is much easier from the right, where the hole is bordered by out-of-bounds. Some of the better players play short of the bunker for safety, and are content to play a longer club for their approach shot. Others may try to use their power to drive over the hazard, while some will coll on their accuracy to slip by the bunker. In other words, every player has the chance to avoid the hazard in his own way.

– Tom Doak, The Anatomy of a Golf Course: The Art of Golf Architecture

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don’t know 13 at Bethpage Red at all. Plus I don’t know the elevations at each side or the length of hole…


…but it appears to me from one overhead photo that if you added 50% to the width of the right hand fairway at the long distance from the tee; and added 50% to the left hand fairway at the short distance from the tee, you’d have a really interesting looking dilemma with the way the green side bunkers line up.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Here is a very in depth analysis of the hole: https://www.golfonlongisland.com/teebox/2012/08/closer-look-bethpage-red-13.html

[Peter Sayegh]

Centerline bunkers are the BEST architectural element to engage and educate the average golfer.

[Dan_Callahan]

I love centerline bunkers on long par 5s that force a very difficult decision on where/how to hit your second shot.

[Michael Felton]

I don’t know 13 at Bethpage Red at all. Plus I don’t know the elevations at each side or the length of hole…


…but it appears to me from one overhead photo that if you added 50% to the width of the right hand fairway at the long distance from the tee; and added 50% to the left hand fairway at the short distance from the tee, you’d have a really interesting looking dilemma with the way the green side bunkers line up.

It's about 400 yards from the back tee. The bunker starts at about 220 yards and runs for a good 120 yards or so before ending around 40-50 yards short of the green. The overall hole is pretty much dead flat. Laying up safely means hitting a shot that can't go more than about 215, which means on average is going to go about 200, leaving another 200 yards in. No picnic. If you don't catch your tee shot on the layup choice, you can wind up with 220 odd into the green, which is interesting, but not conducive to a good score.


Those trees to the left are penal with lots of low branches, so reaching the green if you miss it left is unlikely. If you hit it in the bunker, you want to be in the actual bunker - can lose a ball in the grass in there. That's not a good spot either. It really depends on what the rough is like as to whether it makes sense to try to get close to the green. The left side is not the percentage play. If they cut the trees back then it could become marginal which is the best option. If the rough is light, then the right side is the play. If it's not then short is I think the best option. It's a hole with some serious decisions to make and it's far from trivial to decide based on any kind of formula.