[ForkaB]

Rich --

You say: "Big Bunkers Suck."

Do I correctly read you that you prefer small bunkers that suck -- literally?

Suck golf balls, that is.

And, yes, I did write that slightly differently, originally.

Dan

I wish I were clever enough to have thought of that one, Dan, but, YES, of course!

[Eric Franzen]

....because they.....


--look stupid

[ForkaB]

....because they.....


--look stupid

Actually, Eric (for at least 50% of them....) Yes!  One of the keys to great design is finding and building those few bunkers that have purpose and meaning to the game of golf.......and eliminating those which serve only as eye candy.

[Ed Tilley]

Big bunkers can make a hole but need to be used in moderation. Take the 6th at St Enodoc for example - it's only a short iron second but the sheer vastness of the 'Himalaya' bunker makes it a very intimidating shot. It's isolation as the only bunker of any size on the course also enhances the intimidation factor.

[RT]

Ed,

Nice angle for that second pic of 6, with 4 green in the foreground!

[ForkaB]

Agreed, Ed, re: ST. E #6 (and Sandwich #4, etc.).  "In moderation" are the key words.

[Ian Andrew]

Rich,

While I'm with you in many instances, I can't possibly agree on San Francisco, Sand Hills, Cypress Point or many of the other examples that people had cited.

To each there own.

[ForkaB]

Agreed, Ian.  I am, of ocurse, not saying that any of those courses "sucks" in any way, just that they MIGHT be better with more restrained bunkering.  It's all speculation and theory and preference.

[RJ_Daley]

Just to throw a spin into this, many of the older archies work where there were long, sometimes flat bottomed with grass mounded bunkers, either crossing a FW at an angle, or wrapping around or running the length of a green, were "segmented" in remodelling efforts over the years.  Many were reworked in their base and drainag and made cuppy in the bottoms rather than flatish.  Sometimes this was done for maintenance.  Sometimes for aethetics.  Oddly, some of the previously remodelled long bunkers that were subsequently segmented, are now being restored to long and flatish with grassy mounds.

"It just goes to show, it is always something... if it isn't one thing it is the other..." (roseann rossanadana)

Put me in the proportionality and scaling camp... site specific.

[TEPaul]

"Some of the greatest bunkers in the world also happen to be some of the very smallest."

MikeC:

You're probably right about that. I don't know if any on here remember it but there used to be a bunker at PVGC (I seem to recall it was on the left side of #14) that had to be the smallest bunker in the history of golf course architecture. It could not have been more than a foot in diameter. God only knows why they removed it. Perhaps it was just too scary even for PVGC. I'd offer to restore it but the work and engineering would be massively complicated and expensive. I wouldn't take less that $27,000 to restore it. Afterall it's not that easy to find a Dinky Toy D-8 and a Stewart Little operator these days.

[Tim Pitner]

What do some of you bunker afficinados think of these bunkers?

http://www.beardancegolf.com/golf/golf_hole6.html
http://www.beardancegolf.com/golf/golf_hole6-t.html

Do the bearpaw bunkers exhibit the sort of restraint you had in mind, Rich?

[ForkaB]

Tim

If they got rid of the big bunker and called the remaining complex "Bear Droppings" it would be perfect!

[Paul Payne]

How big is big???

I could easily riff off a list of newer "big bunker" courses (SH) but I am not so sure that some of the classice not only had the same style of bunkering and what seems to be properly dimensioned.

I can think of two courses off the top of my head, sorry to say I have played neither one of them. 1) Aren't some of the bunkers on Bethpage Black rather robust with large extending fingers? I usually hear a lot of praise for those. 2) Isn't Pine valley essentially a golf course laid out within a large bunker? It seems to get a fair amount of praise as well.

I think in the end big bunkers, or any bunker for that matter , are mostly annoying when you hit into them. Using that logic I could rail against clubhouse patios that might be exposed to the 18th green. rather benign until you are hitting from amidst the diners and glassware.

 

[RJ_Daley]

....because they.....

--look stupid
--allow much easier and less interesting recovery shots than small bunkers
--look stupid

Can you really say that about Riviera?  It is intensely bunkered, with generally big bunkers, and is to my eye one of the most proportionally scaled and balanced courses I can think of.  No easy recovery shots, and everything seems to be in harmony there considering placement, shot values, and aesthetics.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/riviera1.html

[Mike Nuzzo]

Rihc,

Bigger bunkers look better when making drawings...

Not so in the field.

I try to draw them tiny - when I look at the size of one and see it is bigger than my office I know it won't look as good on the ground.  For me it is a continual process to keep shrinking them, and hopefully by the time I get on the ground they will be just right.

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Are you in favor of restoring the bunkers at SFGC to their original configuration, or to an interpretive configuration ?

Once you deviate from the original, where does the disfiguration and erosion of the original design integrity cease ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

I am in favour of the SFGC bunkers being restored to whatever configuration desired by SFGC, using Tom Doak's judgement and expertise.  There will be, by necessity (lack of complete information as to what used to be) some interpretation involved, by the parties involved.

Bill

I don't know Riviera so I can't comment on it.  In the pictures the bunkers look interesting (although too big for my tastes), but they are just pictures.

Mike

Thanks for a fine real world example of "restraint."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()