Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Melvyn Morrow on March 05, 2011, 01:59:30 PM
-
With the modern aerial game do we want to see Greens protected? I ask because many of the front Green defensives are now becoming redundant due to the ability to land on the Green, so should we not beef up the rear to accommodate an overshoot. Bunkers are useful catchment points for these wayward balls and if on the shallow side tend to be more of a benefit to the player than the penalty they should be for his/her error.
Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot.
Of course the argument against that is usage of more land, but if we are increasing the courses due to the new distance the ball travels, surely that can be accommodated with minimal cost and planning of the overall project.
OR is the current position of protecting Greens with rear bunkers still the preferred method as it may assist the average golfer and is by definition very old fashion and somewhat dated.
Melvyn
-
MHM,
I'm a big fan of greens that slope back to front with bunkers behind them, especially where the rear of the green has an elevated plateau or tier.
I believe that that configuration is one of the most challenging in golf, physically and mentally.
The fear and consequences of going long are enormous.
Recovery is very, very difficult.
Playing short leaves the golfer with a very difficult putt, uphill, up to an elevated tier, bringing far more 3 putts into play.
One of my favorite holes is # 16 at The Creek, where going long will almost guarantee a bogey or worse.
It's a great feature when combined with others.
-
I remember specifically the 15th at Pine Valley, where after a poor shot followed a marginal drive, my third shot from under a tree required to be a punch cut 3-wood running to the green. I'm a viking with that recovery shot.
With that club, I was already concerned about hitting it too hard and running it through the green, with the green so visibly sloped back to front. It wasn't until our caddy Leo told me there was a bunker back there that I really started wondering if there was another option to get on in regulation.
So I don't think it's exact yardages and fronting hazards that make this idea viable. Rather, I think it's the recovery shot's difficulty that makes it more worrisome. As eluded to by Mr. Mucci.
-
Id prefer seeing an increased use of false backs, think this punishes poor hits shots much much than a bunker which will ultimately stop a ball. With a back pin, it makes missing ling a much greater penalty.
Unless it is a very steep bunker, for better golfer, being in a bunker is much better than being in deep rough or hardpan. False fronts create more of a penalty and can be easier to maintain
-
I think a good example of this is #16 at Riviera. Relatively short hole, about 150 downhill usually into the breeze. Whatever you do, don't go long...very narrow bunker behind the green and you're probably gonna have to hit sideways or backwards to get out of it (since the ball will roll towards the back lip of the bunker.) Glad i've never had to play out of it.
Bobby
-
I think this is a great question.
I think the argument for rear bunkers makes sense given a players increased ability to stop the ball on command. I'm sure fewer golfers today go long on their approaches because they can't hold the green than before. This makes the bunker a better hazard for those players who "airmail" the green because it provides a more just punishment than a runoff, which would be less effective because the ball doesn't release as much now.
But like others I agree that rear bunkers are best used on back to front sloping greens, otherwise they get in the way and stop wayward balls which might end up in worse positions.
-
Melvyn, Hard to tell which side of the argument are on. You use "still in the title and then ask if rear bunkers should be used more.
As for their need, I'm fully a fan of their use, in moderation, when appropriate. Especially when tied in with visuals on a long range scales. I think of Mackenzie, Stanley Thompson, Proctor and Axland, whose work is replete with examples of well done examples. Even, the Jones family and Pete Dye have used these features to great affect.
My favorites of Dye's, Proctor & Axland's tend to be small and hidden behind the green, benched in the fall off, as sort of a "Gottcha" reminder, that you have made a serious miscalculation, not only in execution but also strategically. If they are small enough, they can even elicit an audible chuckle. I think they are the cutest thing in golf course architecture.
-
I love rear bunkers. They were much more prevalent in the past.
-
I think making long a 'penalty' can have be a real positive. More than other trouble spots, this will likely effect/influence the good player over the poorer one. As Patrick mentions a stiff penalty for missing long can make a back tier pin placement truly fearsome, not just in execution by also on the player's mind.
However, back bunkers typically see very little action, so they can add to the construction/maintenance costs without providing that much benefit.
As Marks states, if there's enough room, I think having nothing behind the green is better because it can be harder (especially on a push up green), and it's cheaper/easier. Plus, I'm more scared by seeing nothing (e.g. a fall-away) behind a green than seeing a bunker that I know will stop the ball.
I do generally like the idea of a bunker to stop a ball (preferably leaving a difficult shot) that otherwise is going to finish really, really badly, for instance lost. My home course has a lot holes were carrying a shot (even wedge) to the back fringe means the ball will finish probably 40 yards long, down hill into thick woods, meaning you probably won't find it. A bunker down the hill before the woods would leave a very tough shot, but would, to me, be preferable to the alternative.
-
I say mix it up. Some greens with rear bunkers, some without. Most greens with open fronts. Just be sure there's variety, that's the spice of good golf design.
-
Its not often seen, but a front to back green with a blind long bunker always appealed to me - especially if the green is fairly long.
I am not too worried about bunkers behind back to front greens - that recovery if done properly is already a tough shot.
Generally speaking, I wouldn't be wasting too much of my bunker budget in areas behind the green except on the odd hole or two. This is the reason courses have so many bunkers - people just keep slapping them in rather than really giving it good thought about their purpose in context with the design.
Ciao
-
I can't be sure, but I think I read somewhere a few years ago that Donald Ross did not like bunkers immediately behind greens. His logic was that most players underclub on their approach shots, and he did not want to discourage them from hitting enough club by putting bunkers behind greens. The most common exception was for safety reasons. In those days, the next tee was often located just behind the previous green and bunkers served to keep players from flying the green onto the tee of the next hole. I can not confirm that Ross ever expressed this opinion, but I have no argument with it.
-
Mel,
I'm sorry but I find your post difficult to parse.
Front bunkers are now rendered obsolete by modern golf?? Green defenses are "redundant". If the modern "aerial" game is so accurate and now front bunkers are obsolete how do dorsal bunkers come into play or any bunkers ever for that matter?
I'm with Pat Mucci where I do appreciate the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks holes that punish the overshooters with bunkers that lurk behind the green yet I have read your original post four times and I confess that I do not understand your point.
-
Sean Arble,
That's the configuration of the 10th green at GCGC.
The 13th is similar, but the bunker is offset.
-
With the modern aerial game do we want to see Greens protected? I ask because many of the front Green defensives are now becoming redundant due to the ability to land on the Green, so should we not beef up the rear to accommodate an overshoot. Bunkers are useful catchment points for these wayward balls and if on the shallow side tend to be more of a benefit to the player than the penalty they should be for his/her error.
Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot.
Of course the argument against that is usage of more land, but if we are increasing the courses due to the new distance the ball travels, surely that can be accommodated with minimal cost and planning of the overall project.
OR is the current position of protecting Greens with rear bunkers still the preferred method as it may assist the average golfer and is by definition very old fashion and somewhat dated.
Melvyn
Everything has it place. I think too many options have been taken off the table, so by all means add rear bunkers if necessary. Just did this on an opening hole, and created a slightly diagonal tier that fell away from the golfer midway through the green on a 340-meter, downhill hole. The hole locations around the tier are the most difficult as it usually requires precision to get the ball close, and the rear placement requires hitting a shot to release over the tier or having faith in distance control and flying it over the tier.
What I'm not particularly fond of is rear bunkers flashed into artificial mounds (though there are some that are tastefully camouflaged)... especially round bunkers. A subtle apex in the green is enough to give the position away to the observant golfer, no need for overkill, or perhaps a new term... "overfill".
-
I am sorry some are having some difficulty regards my question on Greens and Bunkers.
I feel the modern ideas of hazards are defined as the good old sand trap alias the Bunker or some sort of water feature. However, we all know that the designer’s arsenal has a great deal hidden just waiting to surprise and test our own resolve. It’s a pity they seem reluctant to delve deep into the cobweb corners of their storage area to occasionally surprise us.
The tactical or strategic part of today’s game has now centred on the Green leaving the Fairway game devoid of any real test or for that matter substance. One’s mind is not focused these days until the Range Finder is required in earnest which on average is 190yards from the Flag. Now the game is coming to life, friendly banter reduced in favour of concentrating upon the job in hand.
(Pity that we seem no longer to have that same feeling on the Tee as they have just become a means to an end, generating very little interest and minimal challenge. I for one miss the sighting of cross bunkers on various LZ dotted over the fairway. Requiring the golfer to show as much skill with his Driver as he does with his 9 Iron or putter, but alas those where the good old days when equipment still rules but not to the extent they do today . Sorry I digress, back to the topic in hand
Greens are more than just an Oasis of Green in the centre of a horseshoe shape bunker (or for that matter is an Island Green). They are the modern Coliseums where the real cut and thrust of golf takes place (as the fairways have been made more or less pointless) , they are the epicentre of the game, where we take no prisoners, the result makes our day and enhances our record (handicap).
So choice of hazard is important, we keep falling back upon sand and water yet grass and contours are still fairly productive in determining direction of the ball and of course we have the beast of all, the stone wall as the final deterrent for the wayward ball.
Have we focused upon using the land past the Green, I fear not, we use it as a way to stop the ball travelling – an aid to the over generous shot, but should we be assisting the golfer at the Green, making his life easy when we have already minimised the hazards on the fairway. Also why should the course stop at the other edge of the Green/rough/rear Green bunker, why should we not test the golfer due to the error of his shot, why make it easy and trap it by use of a bunker. Perhaps deep Pot Hole Bunkers may suffice when land is in short supply, remember the game is not over until you hear the ball in the tin cup. As for water, I fear you kill the game by using water at the Greens.
I love bunkers, but we should use them wisely and surrounding them around a Green is not my idea of wise. I suppose I just wish the modern game would embrace more various hazards from Tee to past the Green, not forgetting that hazards while they may not outwardly affect the good golfer may disturb the concentration, just knowing they are there thus turning into a mental hazard which can be the worst kind.
MY preference being bunkers are preferable to water near a Green but there are more traps just waiting to be selected and the secret is variation, run very closely after location, location, Location.
Melvyn
-
Isn't it all dependent on the topography behind the green? For example if the green is set into a hill with a steep slope behind, a little chip or shot where the blade is opened almost flat may be more difficult from turf than would a shot from a bunker vs. a green site where the topography beyond the green is relatively flat.
-
A good player will typically miss an approach shot long and left while the average golfer misses short and right. In support of playability a deep back- left bunker with no bunker on the front right of a green adds greatly to playability and enjoyment for both golfers.
-
Anyone who questions the appropriateness and/or difficultly of rear bunkers has never been to the Valley Club
Some of the biggest back to front sloping greens you'll find are back-stopped by bunkers. From the two rounds I've played there with variety of members between 5 and 14 h'cap, they seemed to struggle a lot more getting up and down from these bunkers than anywhere else around the green. Granted, VC doesn't have many (or any) false backs. so it's hard to do a comparison. But apart from the visual presentation which people seem to like. It's hard to get enough height or spin on a shot from a back bunker at VC to stop it anywhere near the pin, let alone on the green.
(http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k319/ytones/TheValleyClub2.jpg)
Given the Valley Club is basically routed into the San Ysidro mountain range, it's another way Mackenzie creates hazards that work with the available land. Another course he designed I am familiar with uses many false backs because it's more appropriate to the land and makes maximum advantage of the views. NSW #3, 5, 13 (pictured) 14, 16 all feature false backs.
(http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k319/ytones/hole13pic.jpg)
I would argue that it's not so much mix and match on one golf course as choose what's better for the locale. You can be successful with either approach.
-
Anthony
The point I am trying to make is that should we have bunkers in that location. I fear the answer is no perhaps a further 20 M back, but of course we have to consider the terrain. But rear bunkers generally are an aid to the wayward shot by not being deep yet will stop the ball. I am saying should we not at times let the ball go – a free markets, if you will and see where it stops rather than control it via a bunker.
Melvyn
-
MHM
I agree that there are times when it is very good to just let the ball go where it will beyond a green.
-
"Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot."
Melvyn, placing "stone walls" 20m in front of greens to "stop balls and test the resolve of the golfer? Isn't your premise based upon fronting bunkers becoming irrelevant because of the "modern aerial game?"
-
Philip,
Melvyn is talking about hazards behind, not in front of, the green.
-
Isn't it all dependent on the topography behind the green? For example if the green is set into a hill with a steep slope behind, a little chip or shot where the blade is opened almost flat may be more difficult from turf than would a shot from a bunker vs. a green site where the topography beyond the green is relatively flat.
These are pretty well my thoughts exactly. I think a good example of this (here in Cleveland) might be Canterbury and another I can think of might be Lawsonia Links.. There are some great back bunker schemes on the Canterbury course and with conditions playing firm and fast become an "obstacle" to be thought about on many green approaches when the ground game option is in full effect.
I also agree that swales and/or grass type bunkers and collection areas are other options, but a back bunker can be a nice "surprise" and a fun challenge when on those few occasions we do stray "long".
-
Philip
It is so easy to misunderstand fellow members on this site. You my friend have done just that.
Your post # reads as follows
"Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot."
Melvyn, placing "stone walls" 20m in front of greens to "stop balls and test the resolve of the golfer? Isn't your premise based upon fronting bunkers becoming irrelevant because of the "modern aerial game?"
I never mention in front of the Green my words being
“continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball”. I take that to mean the course continues out the other side and I did go on to say “Of course the argument against that is usage of more land, but if we are increasing the courses due to the new distance the ball travels, surely that can be accommodated with minimal cost and planning of the overall project”.
NO not in front of the Green, but behind the Green – thus allowing the over compensated aerial shot at the Green to freely travel the distance it was hit and not being artificially stopped by generally generous bunkers (which favour the golfer).
Hope that explains my comment and topic.
Melvyn
PS Your idea even for me may be just too penal in that you think I may be seeking a ditch with sand base directly in front of bank having a stone wall see attached photo. To even think of placing something like this about 20 yards in front of the Green. No you cannot be serious.
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/NewAgeGolfingHazardWallofDeath.jpg) .
I like your sense of humour perhaps question your design intent a little - you wicked boy, that's more than the average Redan.
-
Anthony
The point I am trying to make is that should we have bunkers in that location. I fear the answer is no perhaps a further 20 M back, but of course we have to consider the terrain. But rear bunkers generally are an aid to the wayward shot by not being deep yet will stop the ball. I am saying should we not at times let the ball go – a free markets, if you will and see where it stops rather than control it via a bunker.
Melvyn
I have a lot of problem condemning, or praising, things on a general basis. Especially when in most cases the specifics–and the ability to evaluate those specifics–are available.
-
Anthony
You lost me there, I though we were talking golf. With all that has been modernised the Greens outer defensives seem not to have kept up with technology.
Anyway who is evaluating what? As for the question I thought it was just asking for options/opinions.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
How did I misunderstand you when I quoted you directly and then repeated exactly what you wrote in my question? You asked about the need for rear greenside bunkers because, and these are your exact words, "I ask because many of the front Green defensives are now becoming redundant due to the ability to land on the Green, so should we not beef up the rear to accommodate an overshoot..."
So you are stating that due to an ability to land the ball on the green, thus clearly implying that the ground game involving running balls up and onto the green is no longer there for most players. My question about what YOU wrote next then is quite evident that I understood you. Again, here is what I asked:
"Melvyn, placing "stone walls" 20m in front of greens to "stop balls and test the resolve of the golfer? Isn't your premise based upon fronting bunkers becoming irrelevant because of the "modern aerial game?""
The reason for asking that question is because you stated, "Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some 20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot."
I used the pohrase "20m in front of greens" where you used the phrase "some 20m approx. from the green..." Sorry Melvyn, I apologize for your misunderstanding, but I am simply stating the same thing that you are, that you advocate building stone walls approx. 20m out from the green" and that you advocate this as a means to "finally stop the ball" and yet your opening question is based upon challenging players who fly the ball onto the green. Something doesn't make sense here and I believe it is what you wrote.
Are you actually trying to state that the "stone walls" you advocate building are for the BACK SIDE of the green? On this side of the pond, where the true game of golf is enjoyed :) the phrase "out from the green" would most likely be understood, in my opinion of course, as referring to the FRONT SIDE of the green and that is how I took it.
-
Philip
Please take it anyway common sense dictates.
Melvyn
-
Doesn't it depend on the slopes around the green? On my home course there are very strong back to front slopes on most greens, and almost all of those greens have an extremely steep slope falling away behind the green. There is almost no conceivable bunker that would penalize you worse. There are two holes that have back bunkers, and believe me, if I'm heading long I'm rooting 100% for my ball to find the bunker! Here behind the green is thick rough, so aren't hurt much if you just roll long, it is leaving the green while still airborne where you get killed. If they wanted to drive people insane, they'd shave that down to fairway height and people would be tearing their hair out on a windy day on every hole with a back pin.
It also depends on the type of back bunker. If you are likely to get a lot of downhill lies in the bunker, as in the Valley Club example posted by Anthony, its a huge penalty. As a bonus its nicely proportionate, since if you just dribble into the bunker you'll benefit from a flat or uphill lie, you'll only get that nasty downhill lie if you bounce or fly in. Likewise, if you have the type of sand that encourages buried lies it would add a significant penalty to someone who flew long, a moderate penalty (fried egg lie) for a ball that one hops in, and a minimal penalty for a ball that just dribbles in. If they have that fluffy sand that generates buried lies at the Valley Club you could get a downhill AND buried lie, which may mean having to aim back at the fairway since you'd probably be unable to stop the ball anywhere on the green!
-
Of course we need to take account of the course and the prevailing conditions of the hazards around the Greens. I am talking from my experience of local courses certainly around my neck of the woods. I see too many times the trees looming out the back of the Greens just the other side of the rear bunkers, thus allowing limited if any rear recovery from that wayward shot.
The back of our Greens have their supply of bunkers not necessary inter-joined but loosely laced around the back, simply to stop the balls traveling into the woods. It seems that the creativity of designer melted away and all have accepted the woods and a lost ball as the penalty for a rather poor shot. I fear that seems unfairly harsh and pointless as the game is not about lost balls but actually playing every shot even those to get one back into the game. A lost ball on or near a Green is IMHO a pointless design feature which encourages slow play and disruption to every ones game.
Hence my preference of seeing an extension to the fairway running out the rear of the Green before the preverbal shallow bunker. The bunker is a trap not a method to help the golfer stop his ball. I would prefer a stone wall some 20 or so yards to the rear of the Green rather than shallow bunkers. This allows the ball some opportunity to do its own thing before being forced to come to rest. A ditch would be over the top and offer no continuity as would a water feature. I believe it’s that continuity that generates some of the enjoyment when play golf.
In other words some courses and there are a few dating back to The (2nd) Golden Age with Colts name one them that abruptly stop at behind the Green - Colts course at Belfairs near Southend springs to mind see photos of the 17 & 18th Greens.
17th Green view A
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/BelfairsGolfCourse17thGreen.jpg)
17th Green View B
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/BelfairsGC17thGreenwalkingawayto18thTee.jpg)
18th Green
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/BelfairsGC18thGreentwinLHBunkers.jpg)
Do you not feel that the game is somewhat compromised or squeezes by the abrupt way the course suddenly finishes in the trees.
Melvyn
-
Most of the greens at Northumberland GC have some form of hazard at the back of the green.
In four cases (5, 9, 11, 12) the back to front sloping green has a drop off over the back, which means that a long ball leaves a chip back which needs to get up but then lands on a green running away from the shot. On 3 greens (1, 8, 17) the green has the racecourse immediately behind (and in the cases of 8 and 17, below) the green. These are definitely holes not to overshoot on.
2 and 16 have a series of humps (mogul like) behind the green. 3 has a combination of a rough covered bank and a drop off, 4 has a high rough covered bank. A long ball catching up on that bank leaves a nightmare chip from rough off a steeply downhill lie. 6, 7, 10 and 13 have fairly flat ground behind the green (the 11th and 14th tees in the case of 10 and 13) but with shrubbery for the very long ball on 6 and 7. 14 and 18 have OOB behind the green.
I like hazards behind the green but think a mix is a good way to go. It seems to me that the downhill slope, short grass and water behind 15 at ANGC is a great hazard.
-
Melvyn,
After due consideration, my answer is a very specific "sometimes."
In a general and philosophical way, I say that because your comments seem to focus on punishing shots, while mine would be on encouraging shots.
Even if back bunkers do help players, there are times when I like the idea of encouraging a player to go for the Sunday pin when its near the back of the green, and some "save" features do that, whereas a drop off to nowhere would discourage it and make them play to the middle of the green, or a club short, or whatever, to avoid more than a one stroke penalty, esp. in stroke play that most of us in the US play.
If we need to make golf more fun, and a game, rather than some test of our anicent manhood, I think it makes sense. Isn't it more fun to challenge pins with moderate hazards than play safe because they are too severe? Not that there isn't room for variety, and having a severe penalty behind the green on a few occaisions is something that should be factored into a shot sometimes, thus my answer "sometimes."
-
I agree with Patrick. #11 Wanango CC.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af43/nashcarr/DSCF5427.jpg)
-
Richard,
What is that little white stake I see in the background behind that bunker? It looks like this hole has a downslope, followed by a flat bunker, followed by a cartpath, followed by OB. WTF?
This bunker would appear to be mostly a non-factor....there aren't many situations where having it there versus having it filled in with grass of approximately the same length as that on the slope immediately above it makes any difference in terms of where you end up or how difficult your recovery is. The penalty for going long is certainly disproportionate on this hole, if you fly a couple feet long and hit on that downslope you are probably going OB, if you fly a bit further and land in the bunker you will probably be OK. If you roll slowly off the back you could hang up in the end of that thick tangle at the top of the hill with a horrible lie (and maybe even a lost ball if you don't know exactly where to look) but if it is rolling a bit faster it goes down the hill for an easy pitch off the light rough on the upslope or in a flat featureless bunker. This bunker has no reason for existence.
-
When is a bunker not a bunker - when it looks like this. It is IMHO a total waste of space, time and money, yet I expect someone got paid for this design, while some poor sod has to maintain it.
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/DSCF5427.jpg)
If you are going to all the expense of creating this hazard why not just flatten the Green. Perhaps we should grade bunkers as we do films shallow bing suitable to kids of 5 upwards, with say Pot Bunkers being an 18.
Sorry but shallow bunkers are not worth the investment to build or maintain IMO.
Melvyn