Great Without Bunkers?

[DMoriarty]

To run with a topic started by Shivas:  

Would it be possible to build a truly world class course without bunkers?  

Why or why not?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yes, absolutely! It can be done. The defense for the hole is utilzed best in how you would attack the green, and then the green becomes the next defense--You know, Rustic Canyon #12 without the bunkers that line the left!:)

[ian]

Doesn't Royal Ashdown Forest have no bunker?

My favourite par 4 Foxy at Royal Dornoch has none too.

I agree with Tommy, yes.

[Andy Levett]

If you could build a truly world-class course without bunkers (which I doubt) it would involve ridiculous amounts of earth-moving.
Sure, there are individual holes like Foxy where no bunkers are needed but you won't find 18 of those on any piece of land.
If you think about the functions bunkers fulfill then their replacements would have one or more of these drawbacks: more expensive, less effective, monotonous through overuse.

Some uses of bunkers, off the top of my head...

Strategy: Most replacements would be too penal (eg water, heavy rough) and/or expensive (shaping the terrain to give hanging lies etc where the bunker would be)

Containment: Dirty word perhaps, but what does a better job than a bunker from stopping balls flying deep into the trees or onto an adjacent fairway. (mounds are good too but we come back to all that dirt shifting)

Aesthetics: a legitimate use IMHO, but it's all a matter of taste...

I've not played Royal Ashdown Forest so can't really comment. But I suspect the key words in the original post are 'truly world-class'. They're not allowed to dig there, so no bunkers. Others who have played it say it would be improved by the addition of a few.

[DMoriarty]

If you could build a truly world-class course without bunkers (which I doubt) it would involve ridiculous amounts of earth-moving.

Andy,  Interesting comments.  When starting the thread, I was thinking of just the opposite -- I envisioned a course created with very little earth moving. (I wonder how much dirt gets moved during construction to accomodate/create bunkers.)  Also, I probably should have included added artificial water hazards as well as bunkers in my original inquiry.  

As far as increased costs, I would imagine that bunkers would be quite expensive per square foot, perhaps moreso than anything but greens.  Perhaps I assume incorrecty?

As to your individual points:

1.  Strategy.  Why do you think an architect have to resort to features such as hanging lies or heavy rough to provide strategy?  Aren't bunkers penal, at least to most golfers?  I think of strategy in terms of multiple angles of attack, and it seem that one could provide for interesting angles of attack by use of green contours, elevation changes, and interesting fairway contours.  

2. Containment.  I am not a big fan of containment, and generally dislike containment bunkers, so we might just disagree here.  But even if we assume the necessity of containment on a world class course, wouldnt rough be just as effective?

3.  Aesthetics.  You make a legitimate point.  I read somewhere (I dont remember where) that it is legitimate to use bunkers where they are not naturally occuring because they provide the connection back to true links golf.  This can actually be seen at Cypress Point, where MacKenzie uses bunkers (such as on Number 4) to blend the links part of the course into the non-links sections.  

That being said, I sometimes like clean look of a bunkerless shot, and find it a refreshing change of pace.  

[Jeff Goldman]

Great topic, and to get specific, has anyone played the RTJ Trail course in Huntsville?  I read that it has no bunkers.  Is it any good, and is ground/greens utilized for strategic purposes?  How?  Does its quality reflect at all on the general topic, or merely on the designer?

Jeff Goldman

[Tom_Doak]

There is a certain amount of variety to be lost by not having any bunkers ... you won't have as many different recovery situations to play from if you rule out anything to do with a bunker.  But mostly what precludes courses from going without bunkers is convention ... the certain knowledge that most people (including most ratings panelists) would think less of a course without the eye candy of bunkers.

Crystal Downs would still be one of the top 100 courses in the world if it had no bunkers.

Royal Ashdown Forest is an excellent course without a bunker.

I'd love to do a course without a bunker someday if I had a client who was like-minded, and a good undulating piece of ground.

[DMoriarty]

I'd love to do a course without a bunker someday if I had a client who was like-minded, and a good undulating piece of ground.

Start looking for the land.  I am bound to hit the lottery one of these weeks.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Moriarty:

Yes, I think it would be possible. Tom Doak mentions Crystal Downs. I would add Ballybunion as a course that could probably have most if not all of its bunkers stripped away and you would still be left with a great course.

As Tom suggests, topography would be very important in such an exercise, but with the right piece of land you could probably come up with some enjoyable golf.

In my experience there are a large percentage of golfers that are very uncomfortable playing from bunkers. So, something creative that didn't rely on bunkers might be a big hit.

[RJ_Daley]

Dave, I know you made the comment about the irony of desiring natural routing along the ground with minimal earth movement as contrasted to the psychology of massive earthworks of construction for the creation of sand bunkers; but consider the flatish style of some of Raynor's bunkers with steep slopes of turf up to highly manufactured greens of significant contouring.  The same goes for Langford's style.  What if you didn't change a thing on courses like Yeaman's Hall, Country Club of Charleston, or Lawsonia (those seem to me to be of a particular style as I described above) and merely replaced the sand in the flatish bottoms of those bunkers with 3-4 inch, rather lush grass?  I say, those courses may very well play much more difficult and still plenty of fun.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I wrote it in Volume 2 of Paul Daley's GOLF ARCHITECTURE series: like Doak suggests about Crystal Downs, Stanley Thompson's Highlands Links would also remain a world top-100 minus bunkers. There, there's enough contour and wind to keep the game interesting without sand.  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Jeff,
HL might be more interesting without the current bunkering.  

[T_MacWood]

Cape Breton imediately comes to mind for me too. Eastward Ho! is missing quite a few bunkers and still is great. Pebble Beach?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Funny you should mention Pebble Beach. I was thinking the very same thing. Not that many holes strike me as really needing the bunkers. #4, 7 and 17 come to mind, but some of the real gems don't seem to need bunkers, e.g., #8, 9 and 10.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tommy Naccarato,

The 10th hole at Preakness Hills had no bunkers until recently.

It is one thing to design a hole or two without bunkers, it's quite another to design all 18 without bunkers.

Tom Doak,

It would take an extraordinary piece of property to do so.

The fact that no bunkerless golf course has been created in over 600 years would seem to indicate that it either can't be done, or would be extremely difficult to do.

[Ken_Boltz]

I beg to differ about "no bunkerless course." I know of at least one. The Bourne, in Norway, Illinois, has no bunkers. Not one. Its not anywhere near top 100 status, and never will be. But it is blessed with a wonderful, extremely rolling piece of ground unlike most of the area. It is very wooded. And the aforementioned Bourne is very much in play on several holes. There is a par 3 with the green set behind a natural waterfall which is one of the most beautiful holes I have personally ever seen. The Bourne doesn't even show up in most course listings because it is so out-of-the-way. But it has sort of a cult standing among avid golfers in the Chicagoland area. It is also among the toughest courses I have played, proving (at least to me) that bunkers are not really necessary to provide a challenge.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"The fact that no bunkerless golf course has been created in over 600 years would seem to indicate that it either can't be done, or would be extremely difficult to do."

You should probably reconsider the real meaning of this remark by Tom Doak above as it says a lot about that statement of yours;

"But mostly what precludes courses from going without bunkers is convention ... the certain knowledge that most people (including most ratings panelists) would think less of a course without the eye candy of bunkers."

That remark is the absolute God's honest truth, in my opinoin, particularly the part about convention. Refer to post #5 in Shivas's "Great big bad bunker..." thread regarding the likely reason why that bunker "convention" came to be so prevalent in golf architecture.

Certainly for a course to go bunkerless successfully it would likely help a ton if the site had a good deal of interest--topography and such.

William Flynn explained this subject very succinctly, particularly in preparation for building both Philadelphia C.C. and some of the holes at Shinnecock. He said that generally he didn't use bunkering very much if the ground (or other site interest) had a lot to offer and that generally bunkering was used, and used prevalently when the ground didn't have much to offer. In this way it can be understood that bunkering can be a sort of supplement in certain cases and places.

Have you ever wondered why originally there was so much more bunkering on the mid-bodies of some to the flatland holes of Shinnecock (like the orginal designed "undulated waste areas" on particularly #5, #6 and #8 ) compared to the far more togographical back nine holes? Well that's the reason--ie it was supposed to be a supplement for less than interesting golfing ground.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom Doak,

It would take an extraordinary piece of property to do so.

The fact that no bunkerless golf course has been created in over 600 years would seem to indicate that it either can't be done, or would be extremely difficult to do.

Patrick

There a quite a few bunkerless courses in the UK, much younger than 600 years    You've forgotten Painswick already?    (Perhaps, you're only thinking about world class courses?)

Ashdown is widely regarded as the best, and nobody really notices, because the terrain is so bold and interesting.  The course might be marginally improved by including bunkers on just a few holes that are on less interesting terrain-like the 3rd.

I think you could build a great bunkerless links, if the terrain is truly great, as suggested above with Ballybunion.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

It's not that Patrick has forgotten anything. But when he makes statements like no course has been built without bunkering in over 600 years you just have to take into consideration that Pat's wrong 98% of the time--so then statements like that become very understandable--extremely commonplace, in fact.

[ForkaB]

I think most courses (links and otherwise--e.g. Painswick) with great natural land movement could exist happily without bunkers.  The problem would be that if there were no bunkers, golfers would eventually create them over the years, as they tried to hack their ways out of the wee hollows into which balls would naturally roll.  There is a paradox here, the better the land for a bunkerless course, the more unlikely that it could remain for long without bunkers being created "naturally" (if you hold to the belief that man is a part of nature, of course......).

[mike_beene]

I thought The Ocean Course technically was designed without bunkers.While they may not be great there are several municipal courses that play fine without them.Tenison East in Dallas,which once hosted a Publinks comes to mind.I think the perception is that a bunkerless course is inferior is best illustrated in an East Texas real estate course that had one bunker.The bunker was on the left of #3 green,right at the entrance to the property and was the first feature a guest-prospective buyer would see.I always wondered how long it took a new member to realize a quality sand game was really unnecessary to score well there.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I stand corrected, so let me amend my statement.

That fact that almost NO bunkerless courses......

[Jonathan Cummings]

While there may not be a truly bunkerless course, we at GCA can easily construct a composite bunkerless course that would qualify as great.  Let's start with Foxy at Dornoch.

JC  

[Tom_Doak]

Rich is right:  the best terrain for a bunkerless course would be links ground, where sand is a natural hazard.  Ballybunion and Portrush don't have much more than 25 bunkers each, and I'm sure they could survive without them.  Certainly, there were several holes at Pacific Dunes which could have stood on their merits without bunkers, but so far no one has chided us for putting them in.

Royal Ashdown Forest has the natural advantage of heather, which it employs in much the same way an architect might use bunkers.

To me, the ideal ground for a bunkerless course would be a ruggedly undulating property with a wide variety of vegetation, so you could use the trees and ground cover as secondary hazards where a hole needed a little more oomph.

[Eric Pevoto]

Great irony in trying to build a bunkerless course in the only place bunkers occur naturally.