Bunkers that only punish high handicappers are bad architecture ?

[Niall C]

"I very much agree that bunkers that only punish high handicappers is bad architecture."


So said Jim Coleman in response to Michael Morandi's post on the TPC Sawgrass thread. Sorry, can't agree with Jim and Michael. Even a high handicapper wants the thrill of successfully negotiating a hazard or successfully getting out of one. They also generally have to negotiate hazards that are in play for low handicappers so why should it worry them ? Surely the important point is the nature of the hazard rather than who it is likely to affect.

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Wayne_Kozun]

Tillinghast wrote about this.  He called them Duffer's Headaches:

For example, in his article "When Traps Are Friendly" he writes, "During the past sixteen months... since I have been traveling the remote parts of the country inspecting courses as consultant of the P.G.A., it is a matter of record that these have been maintained at considerable cost to nearly four hundred clubs," [the math here is amazing as it works out to some 20 traps per course!], "... that they unneccesarily harass the great majority of those who take to the game for pleasure without in the least causing that comparatively small number of par shooters to give them a thought, and usually injecting a thoroughly discordant note and smudging an other wise beautiful picture of rural landscape."

I would say that one example of such a trap today is the "MacKenzie bunker" at #10 at ANGC.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I will answer by referring to a quote from Jim Urbina as we were walking our golf course 12 years ago.
After I pointed to a bunker and said,


"That bunker would never be an issue (for me), Jim. It's 180 yards from the tee." (On a par 4)


"Ian, there's a bunker out there for everyone. This one is just not for you."


I dont think you can call a specific bunker "bad architecture" as bunkers serve different purposes.
If the bunker is seen by the high-capper before he/she hits the shot, and the player's ball still finds that bunker, then it's just a poor  shot and not bad architecture.


That same hi-capper would not have any issues with some other bunkers designed to test a risk/reward option for a more skilled player.

[Thomas Dai]

Not necessarily bad architecture but certainly a bad element of the Rules of Golf.
Let players of any caliber have the option of playing out of a bunker whether it be thrill related or not. But also let players especially lessors players have the option of taking a penalty drop to remove their ball from a bunker.
Nothing more discouraging for a lessor player, novice, beginneer etc in whacking away at a ball in a bunker but not being able to hit it out. And it slows down play and damages bunkers too.
The current 2 shot penalty to drop-out doesn’t encourage this. A 1 shot penalty just like dropping out of other hazards, sorry penalty areas, would be more appropriate and would encourage rather than discourage such an action. The games supposed to be fun. Let’s not discourage lessor players, novices and beginners from having fun and enjoying themselves.
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

Well raked bunkers will always punish the high handicapper more than the low handicap player. A well raked bunker is rarely a hazard for the low handicap player anymore.

If you want to make bunkers a more equal hazard to all, make them more of a hazard. rake them once or twice a week at best and with a wide tine rake. take the rakes out of the bunkers and let them play as more of an unknown

Then eliminate half the bunkers on the golf course.

[Cal Carlisle]

I am an absolute horror show out of the sand. I know well before I ever hit my tee or iron shot what fate awaits me if I end up in a bunker. It's going to be an ugly score on that hole. I don't practice those shots. I don't get lessons on how to hit them. I have no one to blame but myself. It's a skill that doesn't involve fancy equipment or a high swing speed. I'm just lazy.

For me, the only bad bunker is one you can't see off the tee or from the fairway. The exception to this is a containment bunker on the back of a green.

[Jim_Coleman]

   For the life of me, I don’t understand a bunker 180 yards off the tee on a 400 yard hole that serves no aesthetic purpose. Don’t tell a high handicaper should experience the joy of hitting a successful bunker shot. There’s no joy in hitting a pretty good tee shot and hoping to make a bogey. Let him attempt a 150 shot every once in a while. There’s a reason he has a high handicap - he’s not very good at golf.
   The bunker on #10 at Augusta has aesthetic and historic value. The bunkers at TPC have great aesthetic value. Placing a solitary bunker 180 off a tee often has no aesthetic value. It’s just not fun for a weak hitter.

[Wayne_Kozun]

  The bunker on #10 at Augusta has aesthetic and historic value.

Why does that bunker on 10 at Augusta have historic value?  Because it shows where the green used to be because it was originally a greenside bunker? 

Wouldn't Augusta be improved by "MacKenzie shaped" bunkers like that instead of the oval blobs that replaced those bunkers.

[mike_malone]

[mike_malone]

Tried to post a photo of Mr.Coleman’s favorite bunker with no luck. If you go to your map ap and search Rolling Green Golf Club Springfield Pa you will see a bunker with fairway around it. That’s our first hole. It is on the left of the clubhouse.


 I think it is a sensational bunker because it does exactly what Flynn wanted. It gives you a mode of play since the ball will roll the most in the fairway just to the left of the bunker or over the left side. The fact that people hit into it and get annoyed is a reason to keep it. It isn’t deep at all so it is rather easy to exit. Lesser players ending up in that area aren’t reaching the green anyway so laying up isn’t an issue.
I am in favor of expanding the fairway to the left in that area to give lesser players more room to stay in the fairway.


If we don’t put the bunker there I think we should just not have one at all. The land supports one there but not after that.  Farther does have similar land but not as interesting.


Also one should evaluate bunkers as a set. There is one on 2,5,9,and 12 that lesser players hit into but they are maybe easier in Mr. Coleman’s mind to avoid. I would agree.

[Niall C]

I suspect a bunker 180 yards off the tee is in play for more than just high handicappers but no matter. Let us consider a bunker not far off the tee that the vast majority of low and medium handicappers would sail over without any thought. If that bunker was positioned in such a way as to make the weaker golfer, or short hitter if you like, think about line of play, is that not a good thing ? Something that can make the game more interesting for the weaker player ?


Why should such a bunker be any worse than a bunker further up the hole that the stronger player might get into with their drive but that the weaker player has to contend with with their second (or third) shot ? Does it really matter who or what level of player has to avoid that kind of bunker ? Surely what is important is what role the bunker plays in the strategy of the hole ? Are weaker players, or high handicappers if you like, to be deprived of the chance to show their skill or nerve in certain parts of the playing field just because that area of the park wouldn't be in play for the stronger player or low handicapper ?


Certainly I can see that a large cross hazard that doesn't give the short hitter a chance could/would be considered bad architecture but is that the type of hazard referred to at Sawgrass or even the 10th at Augusta ? Granted the bunker at Augusta is fairly large but there is room to play round it (judging from televison as alas I've never been).


Really the question on whether a bunker is good or bad architecture should be judged on how it affects rather than who it affects. IMO of course.


Niall 

[Matt Schoolfield]

It’s completely subjective, but I think they are a bad idea.

“Fun” golf means helping folks score when they can’t, and challenging folks when they can.

A course that punishes higher handicappers is a course that “demands excellence” from folks trying to have a good time.

If anything I would support bark-but-no-bite bunkers for higher handicaps. A packed fairway bunker without much lip can make an easy sandy feel like an incredible save.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Rosedale Golf Club in Toronto had a hole where there was a bunker on a par 3 between the "regular" tees and the forward tee - I think it was the 13th hole.  It may have been taken out because I can't find it on Google Maps.  But I remember seeing the bunker when I played there about a decade ago thinking "what is the purpose of that bunker".
It claims to be a Donald Ross course, but I don't think there is much Ross left.  I think Ian Andrew has done work there recently so if he sees this then he can comment.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Well raked bunkers will always punish the high handicapper more than the low handicap player. A well raked bunker is rarely a hazard for the low handicap player anymore.

If you want to make bunkers a more equal hazard to all, make them more of a hazard. rake them once or twice a week at best and with a wide tine rake. take the rakes out of the bunkers and let them play as more of an unknown

Or make the fairway bunkers deep, like on links courses.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Well raked bunkers will always punish the high handicapper more than the low handicap player. A well raked bunker is rarely a hazard for the low handicap player anymore.

If you want to make bunkers a more equal hazard to all, make them more of a hazard. rake them once or twice a week at best and with a wide tine rake. take the rakes out of the bunkers and let them play as more of an unknown

Or make the fairway bunkers deep, like on links courses.

While a deep fairway bunker can hamper a low handicap players ability to reach the green, they can also prohibit a high handicap player from getting out of the bunker.

[Michael Morandi]

"I very much agree that bunkers that only punish high handicappers is bad architecture."


So said Jim Coleman in response to Michael Morandi's post on the TPC Sawgrass thread. Sorry, can't agree with Jim and Michael. Even a high handicapper wants the thrill of successfully negotiating a hazard or successfully getting out of one. They also generally have to negotiate hazards that are in play for low handicappers so why should it worry them ? Surely the important point is the nature of the hazard rather than who it is likely to affect.

Thoughts ?

Niall

I was referring to the bunker on the 13th hole at TPC Sawgrass. It lines the right side of the hole from just past the tee to a few yards from the green. It almost takes a shank to get in it. I accept that it might fit in with the visual aesthetic of the course but it’s in play for only the worst golfers,  I suppose one can argue that it’s like a Fazio directional bunker, but it only hurts those who up to that point in the round are wondering why they paid so much for so much humiliation

[Ian Mackenzie]

Just curious....


Since high handicappers are in the vast majority, wouldnt those bunkers be well-placed for them as real and legitimate hazards? (assuming they are, in fact, visible from the tee.


The flip side then should be true:


Bunkers that are only in play for skilled players must be, by your logic, bad architecture as they are only for ~5% of the players.
Why is it "bad architecture" when it impacts such a large part of the playing public?

[Niall C]

“Most golfers have an entirely erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon hazards as a means of punishing a bad shot, when their real object is to make the game interesting.”


The above is from Golf Architecture by Dr Mac. Is he wrong ?


Niall

[Niall C]

A few more gems from the same source;


“Hazards should be placed with an object, and none should be made which has not some influence on the line of play to the hole.”

“It is an important thing in golf to make holes look much more difficult than they really are. People get more pleasure in doing a hole which looks almost impossible, and yet is not so difficult as it appears.”


And then there is his description of his Lido design;


“There are five possible routes to the hole, and the choice of the player must vary from day to day, according to his length of drive, the state of the weather, etc.
 
It caters for all classes of players—even the absolute beginner can take No. 5 line. He loses strokes not by getting into bunkers, but by avoiding risks, and probably takes five, or at least four, to reach the green in consequence; nevertheless he enjoys his game, and not being disheartened, he improves, until finally he may be able to achieve the boldest line of all, and drive a fine ball straight to the hole.”


My take from that is that MacKenzie didn't shy away from having bunkers for the higher handicapper but the key for him was the player having options.


Niall

[Charlie Goerges]

“Most golfers have an entirely erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon hazards as a means of punishing a bad shot, when their real object is to make the game interesting.”

I agree with you Niall and this quote is the reason why. Bunkers and water aren't the only hazards. Short grass, contour, trees, wind, and more. As long as it isn't repetitive, no one golfer (high handicap or low) should be unduly affected. That's good architecture.

[mike_malone]

I also think variety is important for hazards so if one had too much repetition of any idea it would be bad architecture.

[Ben Hollerbach]

   For the life of me, I don’t understand a bunker 180 yards off the tee on a 400 yard hole that serves no aesthetic purpose. Don’t tell a high handicaper should experience the joy of hitting a successful bunker shot. There’s no joy in hitting a pretty good tee shot and hoping to make a bogey. Let him attempt a 150 shot every once in a while. There’s a reason he has a high handicap - he’s not very good at golf.
   The bunker on #10 at Augusta has aesthetic and historic value. The bunkers at TPC have great aesthetic value. Placing a solitary bunker 180 off a tee often has no aesthetic value. It’s just not fun for a weak hitter.

What is the value of a bunker who's only purpose is aesthetics and has no strategic intent?

Seems to go counter to the Affordable Worthwhile Course discussion held here just last week.

[Gary Kurth]

I dont think you can call a specific bunker "bad architecture" as bunkers serve different purposes.
If the bunker is seen by the high-capper before he/she hits the shot, and the player's ball still finds that bunker, then it's just a poor  shot and not bad architecture.

An example of a bunker being 'bad architecture' was hole #6 at the Harvester Golf Club in Rhodes, IA.  It's a downhill par 5 with a pond in front of the green.  The fairway ends short of the pond with several bunkers short of the pond off the end of the fairway.  So, if you hit a bad approach shot to the green and end up in the bunker, you get to try a 40-50 yd sand shot over the pond to reach the green. 


For most players, they're better off going into the pond on the bad approach and drop in the fairway versus playing a 50 yd bunker shot over the pond and likely going in the water a shot later. 


These bunkers were removed during their renovation a couple years ago.  You can still see the original bunkers when you scroll back the image date on Google Earth.


That's my example of what I believe to bad bunker architecture.

[Ian Mackenzie]

   For the life of me, I don’t understand a bunker 180 yards off the tee on a 400 yard hole that serves no aesthetic purpose. Don’t tell a high handicaper should experience the joy of hitting a successful bunker shot. There’s no joy in hitting a pretty good tee shot and hoping to make a bogey. Let him attempt a 150 shot every once in a while. There’s a reason he has a high handicap - he’s not very good at golf.
   The bunker on #10 at Augusta has aesthetic and historic value. The bunkers at TPC have great aesthetic value. Placing a solitary bunker 180 off a tee often has no aesthetic value. It’s just not fun for a weak hitter.

What is the value of a bunker who's only purpose is aesthetics and has no strategic intent?

Seems to go counter to the Affordable Worthwhile Course discussion held here just last week.

For a new design, perhaps your point is valid.


But, for MANY courses designed and built years ago (not just by the "ODGs), they bunkers were there when the courses were 6000 = 6400 yards. Years later and 2-4 restorations later, those same courses are now 7100 yards and PERHAPS some of those shorter bunkers are still there.


A perfect example is the bunkering on the right-side first hole of Royal Dornoch. Have you heard of this course...?...;-)
NFW that most golfers, even hackers, find the 2-3 bunkers that are just 130-180 yards off the tee and way off the fairway.


First hole at Shoreacres also has two "pointless" bunkers in the first 100-150 yards of the par 5 opener.


Here you have Old Tom, Raynor (and Doak) who seem to be ok with this concept.

[Tom_Doak]

If you want to say that such a bunker is "a waste of resources," I might have to agree with you.


That's not the same thing as "bad architecture". 


I can assure you I've put in bunkers that were only 180 yards off the tee, and that my reason for doing so was never to punish a bad golfer.  Most of them have had a visual reason for existing, but occasionally we will do something like that to keep players honest if they are hitting a lay up shot.


The best reason for them is to give the higher handicapper a decision of whether to play on the direct line, or go around the bunker.  I fail to understand what's bad about that.