[Forrest Richardson]

I have checked my crystal GCA ball and, "yes", there would have been many "oooos" and "ahhhs" had there been long grass growing wildly from around the bunkers and a shortish checkered flag — not one ounce of color — plopped just behind the right greenside pit.

Pat M. hit the nail on the head (sand wedge on the sweet spot) — The real test of bunkers is where they fall relative to the line of charm. The where is many times more essential* than the look or the shape. While I might debate the "where" in this case, it is difficult to do so without being there in person and getting the feel for the course as a whole. The perspective of the photographer is almost always different from the golfer.

*Scientific? Yes. When Mark Fine and I surveyed for our hazard book it was concluded that architects, players, superintendents and writers all felt the key to bunkers is there placement; followed by size/shape and lastly appearance. The reason is simple: Appearance is so easily modified compared to the other two. And even shape and edging can be modified with little effort compared to actually moving a bunker.

[T_MacWood]

"When Mark Fine and I surveyed for our hazard book it was concluded that architects, players, superintendents and writers all felt the key to bunkers is there placement; followed by size/shape and lastly appearance."

Forrest
Was this a surprising finding? All three are tied together (with other factors)...if a bunker (or bunkers) is not well placed strategically, interesting, unique, eye catching, and does not interact with its environment (melding or contrasting) its not going to be cited as an attractive or striking hazard. The environment may be the most important factor.

One of the most recongizable bunkers in golf is at the 10th at ANGC. It was designed to guard the 10th green, but when the hole was redesigned it was rendered more or less out of play. Seeing the appoaches from the 10th fairway fly over that bunkers is exhilirating. The same with the quarry at Merion. Both features visually dominate those holes.
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Was it surprising? Partly.

Many people who follow golf architecture become obsessed with aesthetics. This is certainly not a bad obsession. Aesthetics are part of the mix — as you said, they are all related.

I believe we thought there would be more of an even split. But, when pressed, most people rank placement above all else. I will hazard (pun) a guess that it has to do with the game — there are some ugly (unattractive) bunkers in golf, but even some of these can make the game inherently interesting. I know of several bunkers that are "ugly"...but they drive me mad every time I face them. (A few are my designs...I began my career building some awful bunkers in terms of aesthetics!)

I think we would all agree that the magic occurs when all of the aspects come together nicely. That is obvious. The survey will hopefully help clubs and students of golf design know where to focus when limited enrgy or resources are at play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Only Pat Mucci could compare this to Cypress Point. Good eye.

Why don't you look at the pictures of the holes I cited first, then open your mouth, even if it's just to change feet or attempt to weasel out of getting it WRONG.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you try to NOT let the FACTS influence your opinion.[/color]

Noel,

The Travis version of # 12 at Hollywood had even more bunkers then the current version which you pictured.

Interestingly enough, I"ve never heard him criticized for his work at Hollywood, which, according the the cognoscente, would qualify as overkill.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Was this a surprising finding? All three are tied together (with other factors)...if a bunker (or bunkers) is not well placed strategically, interesting, unique, eye catching, and does not interact with its environment (melding or contrasting) its not going to be cited as an attractive or striking hazard. The environment may be the most important factor.
Not according to Donald Ross.

And, the environment isn't the most important factor, it's the playability of the bunker, its interfacing with the golfer.[/color]

One of the most recongizable bunkers in golf is at the 10th at ANGC. It was designed to guard the 10th green,
If that's your theory, it's WRONG.  It did a very poor job of guarding that green, it was offset and not very much in the line of play.[/color]

but when the hole was redesigned it was rendered more or less out of play.

It was always more or less out of play.
It was never pivotal to the approach to the hole due to its offset nature.[/color]

Seeing the appoaches from the 10th fairway fly over that bunkers is exhilirating.

To whom ?[/color]

The current green is better protected by its fortress like location atop the steep rise that forms the foot pad for the 10th green.[/b][/color]

The same with the quarry at Merion. Both features visually dominate those holes.

Not from a playability point of view.
The holes play nothing like each other, on the drive, on the approach and on the recovery.[/color]
 

Tom MacWood,

I see you're bashing Donald Ross again.

According to Donald Ross,
"There is no such thing  as a mislpaced bunker.
Regardless of where a bunker may be, it is the business of the player to avoid it."

It's not how it looks Tommy Boy, it's how it PLAYS.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have checked my crystal GCA ball and, "yes", there would have been many "oooos" and "ahhhs" had there been long grass growing wildly from around the bunkers and a shortish checkered flag — not one ounce of color — plopped just behind the right greenside pit.

Pat M. hit the nail on the head (sand wedge on the sweet spot) — The REAL TEST OF BUNKERS is where they fall relative to the line of charm. The WHERE is MANY times more ESSENTIAL* than the look or the shape. While I might debate the "where" in this case, it is difficult to do so without being there in person and getting the feel for the course as a whole. The perspective of the photographer is ALMOST ALWAYS different from the golfer.

*Scientific? YES.
When Mark Fine and I surveyed for our hazard book it was concluded that architects, players, superintendents and writers ALL FELT the KEY TO BUNKERS is there PLACEMENT; followed by size/shape and LASTLY appearance. The reason is simple: Appearance is so easily modified compared to the other two. And even shape and edging can be modified with little effort compared to actually moving a bunker.

[T_MacWood]

"And, the environment isn't the most important factor, it's the playability of the bunker, its interfacing with the golfer."

Pat
There are some good bunkers in mundane locations, but the cream of the crop are products of their enviroment. These factors are all interrealted....it is very difficult to separate many of these factors from one another.

When did Ross write the manuscript that led to "Golf has never failed me?"

Do you think Ross would compare these bunkers to Cypress Point?  Good eye.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Take a look at the pictures.

If you don't see the resemblance, you're blind, or incapable of admiting that you're wrong ... more likely, probably both.

[T_MacWood]

The resemblance to Cypress Point? Good eye.

[Kris Kerr]

Yikes Patrick...what do they put in the water in your part of the world?
...or start drinking a better brand of whiskey! (or beer...or perhaps just something!)

[DMoriarty]

Patrick Said:

Those who revile their appearance would be drooling all over themselves with praise if they had that "rough" look around the edges.

McConkey III said:

Excellent Point Mucci, excellent point!!!!

.......to that point, may I also add, that if it had not only had the "rough edges" around the bunkers, but also had a "Signature" of the GCA "Favorite Son" that it too might have been heralded!!!
 

Forrest said:

I have checked my crystal GCA ball and, "yes", there would have been many "oooos" and "ahhhs" had there been long grass growing wildly from around the bunkers and a shortish checkered flag — not one ounce of color — plopped just behind the right greenside pit.

Whaaaaat?   The thread asks whether we think this is an attractive bunker complex.  That is a question of aesthetics.  Yet still we get the mindless and baseless claims of bias.  How can having an opinion as to what looks good be considered a bias??

Shelly Solow hit the nail on the head, as usual.  If you want to make a point of bias, then show us where similarly bad bunkers-- only with rough edges-- have been similarly praised.   Otherwise you havent yet begun to support your claim.  

Just for fun, I did a little photoshopping myself to give us a rough and quick idea of what the bunkers might look like with different edges.

[Mike Dickson]

I was inspired by some of the changes that were proposed by the photoshop-capable, so I created a small flash program that allows everyone else to try adding, moving, resizing and deleting the bunkers around this green.

Here is the link

[Kevin_Reilly]

Mike, that is fantastic...thanks for your effort on that.  A lot of fun.

[DMoriarty]

[Patrick_Mucci]

The resemblance to Cypress Point? Good eye.


As usual, your conclusions are flawed.
Actually, they're just dead wrong,
Something you make a habit of being.

The resemblance isn't of one course to another, as you erroneously conclude, but, to the degree of what could be deemed "overkill" as it relates to the holes I cited.

The bunker configuration at the original hole pictured in comparison with the bunker configuration at the 9th at Long Meadow reveals a similar, if not congruent situation.

Look at the photos I cited in Geoff Shackelford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design", and then, at least you can form another erroneous conclusion with the benefit of the facts.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Noel,

Asking if the bunkers are attractive is asking the viewer to reveal his preference in style.

What's more important is how they function, how they integrate with the play of the hole.

Those who revile their appearance would be drooling all over themselves with praise if they had that "rough" look around the edges.

Dave Moriarty,

I believe I addressed Noel's question in my bold response above.  The "look" is a matter of taste.

It's the playability that presents the challenge.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick Said:

Those who revile their appearance would be drooling all over themselves with praise if they had that "rough" look around the edges.

McConkey III said:

Excellent Point Mucci, excellent point!!!!

.......to that point, may I also add, that if it had not only had the "rough edges" around the bunkers, but also had a "Signature" of the GCA "Favorite Son" that it too might have been heralded!!!
 

Forrest said:

I have checked my crystal GCA ball and, "yes", there would have been many "oooos" and "ahhhs" had there been long grass growing wildly from around the bunkers and a shortish checkered flag — not one ounce of color — plopped just behind the right greenside pit.

Whaaaaat?   The thread asks whether we think this is an attractive bunker complex.  That is a question of aesthetics.  Yet still we get the mindless and baseless claims of bias.  How can having an opinion as to what looks good be considered a bias??

Shelly Solow hit the nail on the head, as usual.  If you want to make a point of bias, then show us where similarly bad bunkers-- only with rough edges-- have been similarly praised.   Otherwise you havent yet begun to support your claim.  

Just for fun, I did a little photoshopping myself to give us a rough and quick idea of what the bunkers might look like with different edges.

I think Patrick and several others here are partially correct.  

C'mon...let's see a show of hands.  How many here think that this is a LOT better looking than the original pic, and my guess is that if this was the first one that graced this thread, people would have excitedly run over one another to praise it.  

I think it looks much better and that's a clear aesthetic judgement.  However, as Patrick rightly points out, it probably plays the same.

I do think it points out the unfortunate fact that far too often we judge courses based on the reaction to what we see.

If I were a photoshop expert, I know of at least one course that is profiled on this site where if I took away the frilly faces to the bunkers and rounded them up nice and smooth, my bet is that the course would be much less well-regarded.

[Mike_Cirba]

No other hands raised, huh?

I feel like the kid in health class who is the only one who volunteers when the teacher asks how many of the boys in the class engage in self-stimulation!  

Everyone does it, yet I'm the only one honest (and dumb) enough to admit it!!  

[Dan Kelly]

Why, it's the famous Trix Rabbit bunker complex!

[Dan Kelly]

No other hands raised, huh?

I feel like the kid in health class who is the only one who volunteers when the teacher asks how many of the boys in the class engage in self-stimulation!  

Everyone does it, yet I'm the only one honest (and dumb) enough to admit it!!  

Oh, I'll raise my hand.

I think there are too many bunkers on too many courses -- but if they're going to be there, I'd like them to please my eye as well as punish my shots. These craggy ones are much more eye-pleasing, in my view, than the clean-edged bunkers from which you built them.

As for "self-stimulation": You're on your own there, buddy! (So to speak.) I'm keeping my hands to myself! (So to speak.)

Just about an hour ago, I forwarded today's e-mail from thesmokinggun.com to a couple of friends of mine -- noting that, in my opinion, the Phrase of the Day was included therein, in reference to Jimi Hendrix's days in the military. The Phrase of the Day: "latrine-based onanism"!

[George Pazin]

Dave M nails it again.

The question was asked about aesthetics. As usual, the people who feel they know more made suspect analogies.

It's all opinion when it comes to bunker aesthetics. Anyone who doesn't care for the look of these is no more wrong than those who draw silly conclusions about the obsession of GCAers with hairy bunkers. In fact, he is most definitely more correct, as he is commenting directly on aesthetics and not playability issues.

And when someone says those bunkers look nothing like the bunkers at Cypress Point - to him most certainly being implied, as this is a subjective evaluation for everyone - he is most certainly not wrong, unless one has some way of reading that poster's mind and seeing that in fact it does look like CP to him and he's simply lying.

The next thing you know someone will start comparing the bunkering at Berkshire Blue to the puffy bunkers built by a certain construction firm....

 

P.S. The Trix Rabbit bunker photo might be the funniest post of the year. Nicely done.

[Jim Thompson]

I first looked at this before the "photoshopping" started and was left thinking that it looked like a giant pigeon flew over the golf course!  After seeing the naturalized bunkers I am left thinking that a giant pigeon on a high fiber diet flew over the golf course!  This all leads me to wonder why there is an obsession woth furry bunkers.  Sure the fit some venues, but this exercise should prove they are not an all purpose fix.

Cheers!

JT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()