Bunkers that only punish high handicappers are bad architecture ?

[Thomas Dai]

Could safety bunkers be seen as the opposite, ie helping higher handicappers from getting into even worse trouble?
Atb

[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.

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.

As i understand it, When the courses and playing distances were shorter the bunkers had strategic value,  but today they exist because someone overlooked them during a renovation?

Is that what you're saying? The value in their existence today is only nostalgia or neglectfulness?

[Lyne Morrison]

While well-designed visual bunkers can undoubtedly enhance a golf course's architectural appeal, my concern arises when these bunkers disproportionately affect higher handicappers, resulting in heightened frustration and slower play for a segment of players who would benefit from a more welcoming and encouraging game.


Having observed this scenario over time, I question whether investing funds in such features is always necessary.


Should the aesthetic appeal of these bunkers take precedence over the player experience? I'd suggest not always.


Lyne

[Jim_Coleman]

   A visual reason for a bunker is always a good reason. But a solitary bunker on a straight, quite flat hole, that was moved from 250 off the tee to 180 simply because that’s exactly where it was 100 years ago, is bad architecture. Sorry.

[Matt Schoolfield]

“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 ?

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.

I think these arguments are really compelling. I guess the type of paternalism I suggested earlier in the thread could be pretty insulting to higher handicappers that just want a challenge regardless of whether they're trying to break par, 80, or 110. So I will say that this makes sense, and eat some crow.

[Kalen Braley]

Given the prevailing use of multiple tees in the modern game, I would think even a basic 3 tee setup would work.

A bunker placed where its 140ish from the up tee, 180 or so from the middle, and 230ish from the rear?  I'm sure there are plenty of single digits in the 5 to 9 range where a bunker 230 out would get their attention..

[mike_malone]

   A visual reason for a bunker is always a good reason. But a solitary bunker on a straight, quite flat hole, that was moved from 250 off the tee to 180 simply because that’s exactly where it was 100 years ago, is bad architecture. Sorry.

We must be talking about different holes because #1 at Rolling Green isn’t “ quite flat”. The point of the bunker placement is because the land falls off noticeably just after the bunker. Then as one approaches the green there is a large drop off left which has been recovered as fairway.


Restoring for the sake of restoring is silly. Recovering ideas that reflect a genius’s ideas is what makes a place special.

[Ben Hollerbach]

   A visual reason for a bunker is always a good reason.

Out of curiosity, Whistling Straigts is report to have 1,012 bunkers, how many are there strictly for visual reasons?

We know there is at least one on the property who's there to cause controversy during a major championship, so among the remaining 1,011 which ones actually bring value to the game?

[Craig Sweet]

What is the point of a bunker? 

[Tom_Doak]

What is the point of a bunker?

For that matter, what is the point of golf architecture?

[Jim_Coleman]

   The point of a bunker and golf architecture is the same I suspect- to provide challenge and beauty.

[Jason Topp]

I am against formulaic rules but the bunkers I think should be used sparingly are located around 50 yards short of the green on a decent length par 4.  Such bunkers have no impact on a good player and force the rational player who cannot reach the green to play safely away from the bunker rather than take on the more interesting task of attempting to place the second shot at a favorable angle. 

[mike_malone]

What is the point of a bunker?

 There are differing opinions for the purpose of bunkers. I prefer William Flynn’s idea for ( fairway) bunkers that they present a problem and offer a mode of play. So visibility is essential and fitting the land is a value. I find that my favorite bunkers of his I take on rather than avoid.

[Tom_Doak]

   The point of a bunker and golf architecture is the same I suspect- to provide challenge and beauty.

I would say it's to provide interest and beauty . . . and I think the only place we disagree is that you have a narrower view of what's interesting and to whom.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with TD's "waste of resources" idea.  The average US course spends so much on bunker maintenance that in many cases, i.e., something less than a top 100 or best new course, bunkers need to serve several purposes to be considered for inclusion.  Strategy, aesthetics, save bunkers, etc.  So, there are courses that cannot afford any little used bunkers, and there are courses that (at least for now) think they can afford as many as they want.  Most would be in between, and I think most would say there should be some bunkers primarily for the 180 yard driver, but I would think 1 to maybe 4 of bunkers that only challenge/punish bogey golfers on most courses. 

The other 180 yard consideration is the "over 180 yards from the green" shot......I always felt like a golfer who has somehow muffed their tee shot to 180-200 yards from the green can't reach it anyway, especially from rough or sand, and doesn't really want any more challenge, etc. and I recommended taking out trees and bunkers over 180-200 yards from the green.  Isn't that what Mac and Tillie concluded near the end of their careers?  And, that feeling still predominates in most design, for good reason.



No one has asked, "From what tee?" but you can use multiple tees to make that one bunker 180 for seniors and 280 for low handicappers function strategically similar.  If you design "proportional tees" sometimes you can make one bunker be a lateral bunker for the seniors and a carry bunker for the pros, so they can function differently.


As usual, not black and white issue, but shades of grey that must be determined by the gca and owner.

[mike_malone]

I only played one bunkerless course, Royal Ashdown Forest. It certainly wasn’t  hazard less as the small bumps with vegetation were merciless. But I couldn’t see them.
  It made me think that the visual impact on PLAY  is the major plus for bunkers. That’s why I’m not a fan of target bunkers outside play. I see them but there is no decision to be made.


  Why should lesser golfers not be challenged by a bunker ?  Certainly they shouldn’t be pummeled by many. But bunkers are part of the game.

[Tom_Doak]

The other 180 yard consideration is the "over 180 yards from the green" shot......I always felt like a golfer who has somehow muffed their tee shot to 180-200 yards from the green can't reach it anyway, especially from rough or sand, and doesn't really want any more challenge, etc. and I recommended taking out trees and bunkers over 180-200 yards from the green.  Isn't that what Mac and Tillie concluded near the end of their careers?  And, that feeling still predominates in most design, for good reason.

Doesn't that also mean that a very good player will never face a fairway bunker shot where he can't easily hit it on the green [except in the UK where the bunker faces are serious] ?

[mike_malone]

Jeff,


  I think the visual impact of bunkers and the way they sit on the land argues for a limited number in that 180/200 from the tee area. One of my favorites is on 18 at Lehigh. I don’t know the exact yardage from the white tee but I don’t concern myself with carrying it and I fly it around 200.


But it accentuates the bulge in the fairway and creates a dogleg feel to an otherwise straight hole. Even if carrying it is easy it pushes many left just to be sure. It is also beautiful.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I tend to agree with you.  That said, being a "veteran" of dozens of bunker reduction projects, including some of my own original designs, I can tell you most course managers would disagree.  I have had dozens of what I consider to be important visual bunkers that have not survived bunker reduction.  Typically, the pro and super take me out to a bunker and ask if anything is "missing."  If the answer is "footprints" they rarely want to keep one (or even parts on one) just for visual reasons.


Again, I am visualizing the average course in American, not the top 200 or so, when I make these comments.

[mike_malone]

Jeff,


  It’s a whole different topic but “ who decides “ has a big impact on architectural decisions.

[Thomas Dai]

Worth pointing out that some folk, usually but not always the more elderly, can have difficulty physically entering and exiting bunkers.
Also that the same folks may well find it difficult to produce enough clubhead speed to permit hitting the ball out whether this be because of the bunker lip height or their inability to move the clubhead through the sand quickly enough.
Atb

[Mark Pearce]

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.

That's what I said to the starter when I played in the Carnegie event.  Into a very strong wind into and from the right, they were words I regretted almost immediately.  In still conditions those bunkers aren't in play.  Into a 25mph wind, they very much are for anyone who isn't a very strong golfer.

[Ben Hollerbach]

That said, being a "veteran" of dozens of bunker reduction projects, including some of my own original designs, I can tell you most course managers would disagree.  I have had dozens of what I consider to be important visual bunkers that have not survived bunker reduction.  Typically, the pro and super take me out to a bunker and ask if anything is "missing."  If the answer is "footprints" they rarely want to keep one (or even parts on one) just for visual reasons.

Considering that a century ago courses were built with few or no bunkers, and it was only after a year or two of play that bunkers were added where divots congregated, it would make sense today that courses should remove bunkers that are no longer in play. The lack of footprints would seem to be the equal opposite to a collection of divots.

If superfluous bunkering was unorthodox back then, why shouldn't it also be that way today.

[mike_malone]

Ben,


I think you are describing a type of bunker placement that I might call Fownesy or penal.


  Imagine bunkers being placed to have a high visual impact but in some cases rarely hit into. This might be called strategic.


There is the classic links bunker idea of naturally developed. Those seem random.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other 180 yard consideration is the "over 180 yards from the green" shot......I always felt like a golfer who has somehow muffed their tee shot to 180-200 yards from the green can't reach it anyway, especially from rough or sand, and doesn't really want any more challenge, etc. and I recommended taking out trees and bunkers over 180-200 yards from the green.  Isn't that what Mac and Tillie concluded near the end of their careers?  And, that feeling still predominates in most design, for good reason.

Doesn't that also mean that a very good player will never face a fairway bunker shot where he can't easily hit it on the green [except in the UK where the bunker faces are serious] ?

Tom,


That would be left up to each architect, I suppose.  In my case, I guess it would be nice to have a few bunkers 180+ from the green for them to be challenged, but not many.  I would tend to vary bunker depth, i.e., deeper as you get closer to the green so that a good shot would "just" have a chance to clear the lip on most fw bunker shots, i.e., make sure there is a chance they can hit the green with a good shot, not a bunker that precludes it completely. (well, maybe a par 5 fw bunker where there is no penalty for coming up short from the tee shot LZ)


You, of course, may have your own take on that.