Merits of the centerline bunker

[Ira Fishman]

As so famously said on here so often, the answer to every question is TOC.


And for this question, I would add Woking 4.


Ira

[Jason Thurman]

The course in question takes centerline bunkering to an extreme in tandem with taking fairway width to an extreme, in an extremely windy location.


How many fairway bunkers did Ol Buddy actually find though?

[Matt Schoolfield]

The course in question takes centerline bunkering to an extreme in tandem with taking fairway width to an extreme, in an extremely windy location.

For the sake of all of us, I looked up the course on google earth. This is #13 and seem like an archetype of this peppered centerline bunkering:

[Tom_Doak]

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

Matt:


If you didn’t know, the 16th fairway was connected to the 3rd and went around the left of the PN and another 100 yards down that side, from the time The Old Course was widened from a reversible nine, until 15-20 years ago when the R & A changed mowing lines to toughen it.  I never dreamed it would be changed when I wrote my book, so I didn’t think it needed a diagram.

[Sean_A]

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

Matt:


If you didn’t know, the 16th fairway was connected to the 3rd and went around the left of the PN and another 100 yards down that side, from the time The Old Course was widened from a reversible nine, until 15-20 years ago when the R & A changed mowing lines to toughen it.  I never dreamed it would be changed when I wrote my book, so I didn’t think it needed a diagram.

I have never played the 16th with its fairway anywhere near the 3rd. Of course now there is no fairway left of PN.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  when did you first play it?  It was definitely way wider in 1982-85, and for long before that.

[Sean_A]

Sean:  when did you first play it?  It was definitely way wider in 1982-85, and for long before that.

Tom


Probably around 1991. I am not doubting the fairway was much wider, but its been a long time. There was maaaaybe 10 yards of fairway left of PN when I saw 16 circa 1991. Not much different about 2010. I recall being shocked the forst play because Jack said right of PN was strictly for amateurs. I didn't see another realistic option except a layup. Of course these days pros blow drives past PN. This last game last summer there was no fairway left of PN, but the rough was down.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

In 1995 Nicklaus was in the broadcast booth for part of the final round, and he insisted that Daly was foolish to be taking driver down the left.  It was misinterpreted; I think his point was that it left him a bad angle playing across the front of the green.

[Sean_A]

In 1995 Nicklaus was in the broadcast booth for part of the final round, and he insisted that Daly was foolish to be taking driver down the left.  It was misinterpreted; I think his point was that it left him a bad angle playing across the front of the green.

Jack's strictly for amateurs quote is from much earlier than John Daly's day.


Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

The course in question takes centerline bunkering to an extreme in tandem with taking fairway width to an extreme, in an extremely windy location.

For the sake of all of us, I looked up the course on google earth. This is #13 and seem like an archetype of this peppered centerline bunkering:

This is always the hole that sticks out to me as the quintessential driving hole at Prairie Club Dunes. The fairway is enormously wide, but the bunkers effectively split it into 3 routes. There's the shorter option up the left, the better angle out to the right, or a real bomber can go over the couplet of centerline bunkers and leave a short approach from an excellent angle. The right play any given day will depend on wind and pin position for most of us, and in that sense it really embodies the course's ability to shape-shift from one round to the next.


I do not think this hole would be better without the fairway bunkers, even if it was also narrowed so that this dude in the OP could just crank it down the middle and reach for his tee quickly while punishing errant shots more traditionally. As it is, I find it to be one of the dozen most consistently interesting tee shots that I've played, both before the shot and also once the ball is in motion. It offers acre after acre of safety, but also teeth, tactical challenge, and suspense.


This hole gets my vote for most interesting tee shot on the course, but has stiff competition from a few others. 2 and 8 immediately come to mind. It's arguably the most interesting driving course I've ever seen. That sounds like a great thing, but I'm not sure it's consistently perceived as a virtue.

[Matt Schoolfield]

If you didn’t know, the 16th fairway was connected to the 3rd and went around the left of the PN and another 100 yards down that side, from the time The Old Course was widened from a reversible nine, until 15-20 years ago when the R & A changed mowing lines to toughen it.  I never dreamed it would be changed when I wrote my book, so I didn’t think it needed a diagram.

Fair enough, I still think that centerline bunker work best when it forces interacting with other element on the course, which, in the case of Corner of the Dyke and  Woking 4 (as Ira noted) is the out-of-bounds. TFE wrote about Kapalua Plantation Course 5 last year as well. I guess my main idea is that, right or wrong, there is a class of player that will see a bunker placed in an otherwise safe landing zone as frustrating. On the one hand, they can just get over themselves, but on the otherhand, I think obfuscating a centerline bunker is probably a good way to keep the fair police satisfied.

I would propose that there are lots of ways to achieve what a centerline bunker does without actually using a bunker (if the goal is to  force interacting with some other element). A short wall crossing the fairway at an angle could create the same split fairway, a shrub, an existing structure, even a large hillock. Lots of things could make players pick a side or end up with an obstructed shot, but for some reason the choice is always a bunker. And bunkers, I suppose, seem a bit more manufactured than other options whenever they are in a non-links environment, and add significant cost as well.

However, if the point is to just increase the randomness of outcome (which I think is fun), then pepper those bunkers effectively at random and call it a day.

[Sean_A]

If you didn’t know, the 16th fairway was connected to the 3rd and went around the left of the PN and another 100 yards down that side, from the time The Old Course was widened from a reversible nine, until 15-20 years ago when the R & A changed mowing lines to toughen it.  I never dreamed it would be changed when I wrote my book, so I didn’t think it needed a diagram.

Fair enough, I still think that centerline bunker work best when it forces interacting with other element on the course, which, in the case of Corner of the Dyke and  Woking 4 (as Ira noted) is the out-of-bounds. TFE wrote about Kapalua Plantation Course 5 last year as well. I guess my main idea is that, right or wrong, there is a class of player that will see a bunker placed in an otherwise safe landing zone as frustrating. On the one hand, they can just get over themselves, but on the otherhand, I think obfuscating a centerline bunker is probably a good way to keep the fair police satisfied.

I would propose that there are lots of ways to achieve what a centerline bunker does without actually using a bunker (if the goal is to  force interacting with some other element). A short wall crossing the fairway at an angle could create the same split fairway, a shrub, an existing structure, even a large hillock. Lots of things could make players pick a side or end up with an obstructed shot, but for some reason the choice is always a bunker. And bunkers, I suppose, seem a bit more manufactured than other options whenever they are in a non-links environment, and add significant cost as well.

However, if the point is to just increase the randomness of outcome (which I think is fun), then pepper those bunkers effectively at random and call it a day.

No, you don’t need a bunker for the centreline feature to work, but unless harsh rough is the feature, a bunker can more easily make the drive critical. To me a good centreline bunker is a quadruple threat. In the case of Woking

OoB right

One of the two centreline bunkers

Rough left (now a bunker which is totally unnecessary)

If safely drive left, front left bunker and green moves toward OoB

The idea is OoB must be dealt with on the drive or approach….your choice…unless you play a layup game and accept 5 as a good outcome. A bit like 17 TOC or Redan North Berwick, there is a play to go long which can leave a more viable chance for a 4. 16 TOC has a very nasty bunker to the rear of the green, but loads of space to bail left in 3 putt territory.

The concept is very good. Woking is a bit special because the third utilises a centreline bunker at the green. It’s a great one-two punch.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

What about other centre-line hazards? Say a small pond, although best not mention the pond in the middle of the 17th fairway at RCD that was filled-in fairly recently!


As to the Principals Nose, well the 16th at TOC has been royally screwed-up by mowing line changes. Other places no doubt too. Bring back the sheep, their nibbling lines are far superior.

atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

I really can’t see why anyone would argue against the occasional centreline bunker when there is a normal fairway width of space to at least one side.


The issue comes - and I’ve seen this on a couple of recent courses by architects keen to follow the trend - when there is not enough room for a centreline bunker and its addition unintentionally serves as a cross bunker.

[Sean_A]

I really can’t see why anyone would argue against the occasional centreline bunker when there is a normal fairway width of space to at least one side.


The issue comes - and I’ve seen this on a couple of recent courses by architects keen to follow the trend - when there is not enough room for a centreline bunker and its addition unintentionally serves as a cross bunker.

What do you think is the minimal width of fairway either side of the centreline bunker?

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I would propose that there are lots of ways to achieve what a centerline bunker does without actually using a bunker (if the goal is to  force interacting with some other element). A short wall crossing the fairway at an angle could create the same split fairway, a shrub, an existing structure, even a large hillock. Lots of things could make players pick a side or end up with an obstructed shot, but for some reason the choice is always a bunker. And bunkers, I suppose, seem a bit more manufactured than other options whenever they are in a non-links environment, and add significant cost as well.

At Memorial Park I built a six foot high, crowned contour in the middle of the 18th fairway landing area to try to make the players choose sides.  I actually thought it would help some guys aim away from the pine tree on the right side and use the slope to direct them back around to the right to get that angle.


Anyway, the TOUR brass were scared of that feature, because so many of the young pros believe that any feature in the center of the fairway is unfair.  [And they do; witness Justin Thomas' tantrum over the 13th hole at TPC Boston a few years back.  They have been taught they should aim 32 yards away from any significant hazard, and usually there isn't 65 yards of freedom to the left or right of a hazard in the middle of the hole, so they have no safe play to make.]


So, the TOUR made many suggestions to my associate, to the contractor, and to the sponsor that we should soften the feature or take it out.  They told Jim Crane that the sponsor wouldn't want bad publicity if they players complained about the feature, and it might cause players not to come back the next year; luckily when I interviewed for the job I told him something like this would happen, and he had my back.  The TOUR also went to Brooks Koepka and told him it was going to be controversial; on his next site visit he laughed and said he was dying to see what was making them so nervous.  In the end, we did soften it slightly, even though no one but the TOUR officials thought that was necessary.  God forbid somebody got a random bad bounce off the feature on prime time TV!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I really can’t see why anyone would argue against the occasional centreline bunker when there is a normal fairway width of space to at least one side.


The issue comes - and I’ve seen this on a couple of recent courses by architects keen to follow the trend - when there is not enough room for a centreline bunker and its addition unintentionally serves as a cross bunker.

What do you think is the minimal width of fairway either side of the centreline bunker?

Ciao

There are no rules (and Tom’s titbit of pro’s aiming 32 yards away from a hazard is very interesting) but I would have thought >30-35 yards plus some rough on the safe side and >18-20 yards with some rough on the narrow side. That is what I put in on the 16th at Strandhill and it works very well. Small pot in the middle, only about 5 yards wide.

[Sean_A]

I really can’t see why anyone would argue against the occasional centreline bunker when there is a normal fairway width of space to at least one side.


The issue comes - and I’ve seen this on a couple of recent courses by architects keen to follow the trend - when there is not enough room for a centreline bunker and its addition unintentionally serves as a cross bunker.

What do you think is the minimal width of fairway either side of the centreline bunker?

Ciao

There are no rules (and Tom’s titbit of pro’s aiming 32 yards away from a hazard is very interesting) but I would have thought >30-35 yards plus some rough on the safe side and >18-20 yards with some rough on the narrow side. That is what I put in on the 16th at Strandhill and it works very well. Small pot in the middle, only about 5 yards wide.

Is there a big advantage to approaching from the narrow section of 16 Strandhill?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I really can’t see why anyone would argue against the occasional centreline bunker when there is a normal fairway width of space to at least one side.


The issue comes - and I’ve seen this on a couple of recent courses by architects keen to follow the trend - when there is not enough room for a centreline bunker and its addition unintentionally serves as a cross bunker.

What do you think is the minimal width of fairway either side of the centreline bunker?

Ciao

There are no rules (and Tom’s titbit of pro’s aiming 32 yards away from a hazard is very interesting) but I would have thought >30-35 yards plus some rough on the safe side and >18-20 yards with some rough on the narrow side. That is what I put in on the 16th at Strandhill and it works very well. Small pot in the middle, only about 5 yards wide.

Is there a big advantage to approaching from the narrow section of 16 Strandhill?

Ciao

Yes, in so much as the only other bunker I put in the hole is a large greenside one front left (left being the wide side from the tee)… particularly if the pin is positioned on the lower tier.


But it is a big green. I will be slightly reworking the back tier to tie it in better and add a bit of challenge.

[Niall C]

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?

Matthew,


It seems to me that your friend is asking the wrong question. Rather than "why should I be punished......" it should be "will I be punished....". Maybe upon reflection, or with experience, your friend will come to appreciate the mental challenge of having to think his way round the course. If he does then I think he'd find the game a lot more rewarding.


Niall