Why are bunkers so well defined?

[Ran Morrissett]

You're either in a bunker or not these days -their edges are laser-like defined, even the side of the bunker away from play. I seem to have become more and more conscious of such bunkers sticking out from their environment as opposed to being apart of it. In short, man's hand is too evident. Recently, I've seen a lot of 70-80 year old photos of courses where the bunker shapes were vague and general - you might be a foot or three from the bunker and be unsure if you're actually in it. You might be on a thin, bare lie or on a clump of sand, who knows.These photographs struck me as appealing for three reasons:1. The bunkers seem more natural (i.e. less of a man-made contrivance and less scientific).2. Time could be saved on the maintenance and general up-keep if the bunker and its surrounds were left more to chance.3. If the area around the bunker wasn't perfectly presented, the golfer faces another kind of challenge in the form of a random, haphazard lie.Can anyone think of a modern course were such bunkers have been built on such a free form basis? If not, does that mean that bunkers are being overcooked these days?Cheers,

[John_McMillan]

From a rules persective, it makes a world of difference whether you are actually inside, or outside, of a bunker (grounding a club, moving a loose impediment, where relief can be taken under certain circumstances).I'm all for keeping the edges defined (though the razor sharp look of Augusta National might be on the extreme side).

[jglenn]

John,Concerning the rules, perhaps a good question then would be "why should it make a world of difference?".

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom P,Fowler is about to be highlighted again on this site. Upon seeing this course profile, I was contacted by a member of Walton Heath on Friday who has agreed to take photographs from there so that we can get up a course profile on Fowler's inland masterpiece. Talk about a small world - how cool's that?!Mark,You're a good man!Paul,I haven't seen any evidence to where Fowler considered Eastward Ho! in the same league as Westward Ho! or Walton Heath, remembering that he said "Westward Ho! means the greatest reward for good and the most severe penalty for bad play to be found on any links, and at the time of writing (1912)reigns as the finest course in the United Kingdom." As for me, you may recall that I have Westward Ho! in my personal world top 20 and Walton Heath in the top 60 and at 6,200 yards, Eastward Ho! probably won't end up quite that high. (On a side note, I will never forget the dismantling that the four Morrissetts had at Walton Heath one windy afternoon. Apart from Pebble Beach where none of us broke 90 our first time around, Walton Heath Old holds the distinction of having the highest winning score by a Morrissett).However, Eastward Ho! comfortably matches Saunton on a hole for hole basis and you know what high regard the Brits hold Saunton East. Tony P's post about considering it the Cruden Bay of America is telling, and the more I think of it, the closer in quality those designs appear to be - certainly Cruden Bay has the worst holes (9,10,11,12,15) of the 36 and Cruden Bay is ranked world #55 by GOLF Magazine. I imagine that it is more inspiring than the Berkshires (which I haven't seen), just because of the huge jump start the glacial moraine gave Folwer and how the trees have enclosed the Berkshire courses.I would be SHOCKED if you weren't spellbound by Eastward Ho! Ed,Eastward Ho! reminded Matt and me of Charles River in that the architect let the wild topography create a bunch of unique, memorable golf holes.Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,You're correct about Boca Raton G&CC, unfortunately.  Parts of the original William Flynn course had been incorporated for other uses over the years, and the latest incarnation is a Gene Bates design on a really tight property.  It is truly not a bad effort given the limitations, and the condition is pretty incredible.  It's not a bad resort track, overall, but only a hole or two even follow the same original Flynn routing.Zook,I played golf recently with a fellow who is similarly enamored with CC of Harrisburg.  I believe the course was built in 1916, and was one of Flynn's very first courses.  I hope to make a visit there next year.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran,I totally agree with you and it's pained me in recent years to see some pretty well-regarded classic courses "tidy up their bunkers".Others have gone so far to provide clean edges that I heard a playing partner recently and accurately refer to the bunkers of an otherwise superb course as "sterile".As far as the rules, I have a simple one that doesn't seem very difficult to follow...if in doubt as to whether you are in a hazard or not, DON'T GROUND THE CLUB!Sheesh....how would we and the game have ever survived before modern maintenance practices...  

[Aaron]

I agree Ran, most bunkers can benefit from a less defined look.I especially like the bunkers first used at Cypress Point and other courses...rough edged and almost none of those gently curving lines (i.e. Augusta). I understand they are to keep in condition though.Aaron

[Paul Turner]

Sunningdale Old has two world class short 4s at the 3rd and 11th.  But another, the 9th, is usually cited as a weak link (though I don't really mind it).Lahinch has probably the best links set with the 8th, 9th and 13th.   Lytham's are good too at the 10th, 13th and 16th.  Ballybunion's 6th and 10th are great but don't these usually play a bit longer with a drive and pitch into the prevailing wind?

[TEPaul]

Zook:Don't you worry about not knowing half as  much as the people who post on here. All the people who post on here and think they know something about architecture (except Tom Doak), including me, don't really know squat about architecture--they just delude themselves into thinking they do!

[Dan Herrmann]

Are any courses being built these days with the "less defined" bunkers as Ran described above?

[Matt Varney]

I wonder how well a new course design would be received by players with a look that was just firm and fast with blowouts all over the place.  I have thought about this for a long long time and wondered if I took a great property with natural features some trees then started shaping fair medium length holes that allowed you dominate the course with big drives but countered this strategy by placing blowouts of all sizes all over the place.  Small ones large ones groupings of them near bunker edges and just let them grow wild. 

Use minimal fertilizer and let the water only be used for tees and greens not the fairways.  I would have a course that would be par 70 play maybe 6,500 yards with like 250 blowout bunkers all over the place.  I think people would come to play it if the price was right but, it would be almost impossible to not get some really bad bounces that ended up as tough or unplayable lies during your round.

Ran, are you considering using this type of random bunker strategy at Cabot Links?   

[John Moore II]

Zook:Don't you worry about not knowing half as  much as the people who post on here. All the people who post on here and think they know something about architecture (except Tom Doak), including me, don't really know squat about architecture--they just delude themselves into thinking they do!

Nothing really on topic to contribute, I just thought this comment by Tom is great. Even he admits sometimes he knows nothing about architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

JK - even less on topic is this. When I saw the thread title, the very first thing I thought of was being ten years old in Catholic school and taking a field trip to the local church. A priest talked to us about mass, all the little details. So at one point he shows us a host like the ones the priest holds up during mass i.e. a larger one than what they give out to parishoners. And he asks us kids why we thought it was larger. So I say something like"The priest represents God and so he's extra special". And the priest says, "Thanks, but actually it's just so the people in the back row can see it".

Which is to say, maybe bunkers are well defined just so we can see them from way in the back.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Nothing really on topic to contribute, I just thought this comment by Tom is great. Even he admits sometimes he knows nothing about architecture.       "


J. Kenneth:


Let me tell you why I said that. As I've always considered that the best stuff I've come to know about golf course architecture probably came from Bill Coore at one time or another (there was a time I used to ask him endless questions about all things to do with architecture), and once we were driving around somewhere in the middle of nowhere in South Jersey (I think we had a couple of those Whathfuqawi Indians in the back seat) and he happened to mention (probably in response to all my questions) that it is always a good thing to remember to know what you don't know on the subject of golf course architecture. I thought about that a for a while and then I asked him how anyone can know what he doesn't know. Bill Coore thought about that one for a while and then without saying another word he just looked at me for a while with THAT look that sorta said: "That's not for me to say and that's for you to figure out for yourself because basically that's the "Keys to The Kingdom", you dumb duck."
 


But that's not the end of it. There was another time I was somewhere with Kye Goalby who seems to be the only other one I know who works with that notion Bill Coore mentioned that "one should always remember to know what one doesn't know." So I asked Kye how anyone can't know what he doesn't know. Kye Goalby is a guy from Missouri, and people from Missouri are known to pretty much tell it straight. So he thought about my question for a while and just said; "He can't".

And that was pretty much the end of it. I don't believe I've ever asked that question again! And It's also why I just figure most of the time I don't really know anything about it because I figure if you approach it with that outlook and philosophy, then anything and everything is possible!

And I've actually put that philosophy in practice in anything I've ever tried to actually do in architecture and that just might be the reason why everything I've ever tried to do in architecture about half the people think is an outrageous mistake while the other half seem to love it!