Naturalism in architecture and the issue of sand bunkering

[JESII]

I'd get rid of the fairway bunker, but would keep one of the greenside bunkers.  Jim, if you had to keep one, which would you keep?    

I assume you are asking about #2...if so, they serve two different purposes, the left is a containment bunker...where would balls stop if that were not there? The creek down on #12 200 yards away? The right one really plays an important role in dictating play, especially for golfers that are not approaching the green with middle irons or less so I would say it is more important to the hole.

[JESII]

I have to say that the topic of superfluous bunkering is very interesting.  Everyone has a different perspective on what is needed and what is not (and usually no one is right or wrong).  I'm convinced the best architects can envision all the different perspectives.  I wonder what Mr. Flynn would think if someone said that 80% of his bunkers on one of his better designs could go away    I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with JES.  I just find it interesting and conversations like this come up all the time with club committees.  

Mark,

In these conversations, what are the reasons argued for keeping bunkers?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

The hole I meant to refer to when asking if you only kept one greenside bunker was the 3rd.

[wsmorrison]

Here is the 4th.  This is one hole where we do not see the final plan.  The hole was turned into a slight dogleg left with bunkers and mounds along the direct line to the green.  This is the only template style hole that Flynn used on more than a few occasions.  He used this design on 18 courses, sometimes using natural  topography instead of bunkers and mounds.

I think the disruption between the tee and the green is essential in this design.  I guess you could take out the sand and leave pockets with mounds and it would be fine.  I like the change in color and texture though with sand.

Routing plan design:



1938 aerial (Craig Disher collection)



Hole #5

[JESII]

Wayne,

In my post #63 I list only one bunker remaining on #3 and it is the front right greenside...

Also, I would not retain the shape of the current bunkers in these areas...no grass bunkers...I would like the ball to run away from the green on the low side.

#4 is much better represented in the photo than the drawing...I think the first bunker on the left and the two little circle bunkers are non-essential. the one immediately short of the green might be questionable to remove, but I think its flanking bunkers do the job.

I'd also eliminate use of the current back tee in favor of the recently built intermediate tee...this would shorten the hole from 360 to about 330 making it a realistic (although unwise) temptation to go for the green.

[wsmorrison]

Hole #6

[Tom_Doak]

JES:  Thanks for your post, which has really made me stop and think.

I would suggest that the primary reason for most courses having so many bunkers is that the architect believes he needs to do more "designing" to justify his fee ... or to make the player do what the designer wants him to do.  (I suggest the latter because it's sometimes what I thought while working with Mr. Nicklaus at Sebonack -- he says he is creating more options, but in the process he is dictating what the A, B, and C player ought to try to do.)

I will agree with your assessment of the value of each bunker for a good player, because you certainly know the course better than I do.  But, when you take out those 55 bunkers, will you have left the average player with enough interesting features to keep his attention and make the course fun?

If you combine the two viewpoints, then many modern architects have it exactly wrong -- they are putting in more fairway bunkers further downrange, when most of the fairway bunkers of interest to anyone are those in play for shorter hitters.

P.S.  I do think a lot of the bunkers at HV are meant to get the members to aim to the high side of the hole, to help keep them from winding up in the fairway below.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I will agree with your assessment of the value of each bunker for a good player, because you certainly know the course better than I do.  But, when you take out those 55 bunkers, will you have left the average player with enough interesting features to keep his attention and make the course fun?
...

Admittedly, I have never been there. However, what I have read and seen here would make me think just the topography would keep my attention and make the course fun.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
You can just see how this discussion is going and why restoration work is so difficult and controversial.  Everyone has an opinion of what to keep, what to add, what to change,...  It is why many golf courses end up as they do - some better, some worse.  

Getting back to your question -

"In these conversations, what are the reasons argued for keeping bunkers?

I remember one comment that came from an older committee member that still sticks with me.  The discussion was during a master plan session about an original diagonal cross bunker about 80 yards off the tee forward and 130 yards off the middle tee.  My recommendation was to restore it leaving a longer and safer path around it on the right.  The majority of the committee thought the bunker was only going to be penal for the weaker golfer and not in play for everyone else.  They did not think it should be restored.  The older gentleman I referred to above (about a 20 handicapper) sat there listening to the discussion then finally chimed in.  He said to the rest of the committee, "Some of us might not hit the ball as far as many of you but that doesn't mean that those of us playing the shorter tees still don't like a challenge.  If you take all the interesting hazards out of play for us, what kind of inspiring golf are we left with?"    

I don't know if it helps answer your question but it does say at least to me that you need to take many different perspectives into play when making these decisions.  There are soooo many other factors to consider as well.  

[JESII]

...
I will agree with your assessment of the value of each bunker for a good player, because you certainly know the course better than I do.  But, when you take out those 55 bunkers, will you have left the average player with enough interesting features to keep his attention and make the course fun?
...

Admittedly, I have never been there. However, what I have read and seen here would make me think just the topography would keep my attention and make the course fun.

I was about to address that same sentence in a similar way...by making the correct assumption that the topography yields plenty of interest...you answered better than I could.


The short fairway bunkering (like on #2 on the left) probably does add interest for the average player because this is a three shot hole for them and the goal should be to get into the left corner at pitching distance in two shots...the bunker as is works in that light. But, if the crusade is to go without the bunker, there is certainly plenty of contour there to steer a ball down to the left providing an equitable penalty to the bunker...a medium pitch out for a full length third shot.


Agreed on the placement of the bunkers, but they also serve the strategic purpose of usually being right where the best approach to the green is from.

It is a very extreme site, and eliminating all of the greenside low side bunkers I have listed would not be feasible simply because of where the ball would end up, but to me that's a logistics issue more than a golf issue...although I do understand it all must go into the pot.



Wayne,

#6 might be my favorite non-descript hole in golf...when it's singing there are few cooler approach shots than this one because the green is such a cool flowing motion. And it does dictate play back to the tee...regardless of the left bunker being there...the right one (similar to short right on #2 and short left on #12, and short right on #5 at Merion) is interesting to me, and worth a discussion itself.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

You sure are right about 6 being a kind of sneaky great hole.  It looks sort of, well as you say, non-descriptive.  But it has wonderful fairway contours, the terrific short right bunker and an amazing green.  It is hard to read correctly with a lot of subtle breaks.  It is also a very ingenious example of surface drainage.  Actually, there's a lot of great surface drainage around the golf course.

I like Tom Doak's observation about the high side bunkering.  I also agree with your assessment that the low side bunkering prevents balls from going too far down some serious slopes towards the valley bottom.  It seems like bunkers quickly became part of accepted design practices even in areas where hundreds of miles from native sand.  I agree that in many cases too many bunkers have been used.  I've said that for some time now about even the greatest architects, such as MacKenzie.  However, you have me thinking about Flynn's use of bunkers on very topographic sites, and it is proving to be an enjoyable thread.

[JESII]

Mark,

I have not had hose conversations, but I do think I have an open mind about the process...see my post above in response to Tom and Garland.

In your example though, the older gentleman seemed more put off that the better players made the assumption that a bunker not effecting them was not necessary...I understand that is not the appropriate way to go about it...


Would it be less acceptable to have short grass at a place like HVCC that could carry the ball 20, 30 or 40 yards away from a green as opposed to some of these low side bunkers that are used now? Which class of players would raise the bigest alarm? In the full baked brown of summer it would be very possible to skip a ball off the right apron of #16 and have to go down and pick the ball out of the creek by #11 75 yards away...wouldn't make me happy...but if there were no sand on the premises...

[wsmorrison]

Hole #7 with a similar fairway cant, a minimum of bunkering and a terrific green with great surface drainage.  The bunkers and mounds at the beginning of the fairway are a nice feature to play over with a fade or start further right with a draw.

[Mark_Fine]

JES,
You said:

"Would it be less acceptable to have short grass at a place like HVCC that could carry the ball 20, 30 or 40 yards away from a green as opposed to some of these low side bunkers that are used now? Which class of players would raise the bigest alarm? In the full baked brown of summer it would be very possible to skip a ball off the right apron of #16 and have to go down and pick the ball out of the creek by #11 75 yards away...wouldn't make me happy...but if there were no sand on the premises..."

What do you think Flynn intended to happen to the ball in this situation?  That might be the first place to start.

[JESII]

I might be wrong, but I assumed Tom was talking about the low side bunkering getting people to aim high...

[JESII]

Mark,

Keep in mind that I am thinking in the context of this thread topic and these words below...I think it is an interesting subject, and one that should pertain to current courses and those built in the future.

It's been mentioned before but if golf course architecture is ever going to venture into a new realm of real naturalism, particularly specific "site naturalism" the art form is just going to have to reconsider the appropriateness of sand bunkering on particular sites.

...

In my opinion, for golf architecture to ever go to or get to the next level of naturalism golf architects have just got to rethink the appropriateness of sand bunkering on sites that have absolutely no natural sand.

Also keep in mind that I have stated before that I am not a strict restorationist...and yes, I do understand the dangers of that...

[Sean_A]

I might be wrong, but I assumed Tom was talking about the low side bunkering getting people to aim high...

Sully

I too found Tom's comment hard to understand.

I often think that on good sites courses are overbunkered - especially low side bunkering (on fairways and greens) which mainly serves to constrict a course - the archie is simply dictating the line of play.  This isn't bad in and of itself, but it does get old very quickly.  I could be wrong, but from the photos it looked as though Doak was more restrained than usual with his bunkering at Ballyneal and this is very appealing to me.

I wish I knew the HV to know exactly what you and Wayne are on about.  It does sound as if the terrain does provide plenty of interest, but that Tom may be right about archies earning their fee.  However, it is more than that.  I think golfers expect to see plenty of sand about and other elements of design which are more about pleasing the eye than creating genuine interest.  For the most part, archies deliver what golfers want.  

Thanks and carry on!

Ciao

[wsmorrison]

Holes #9 and #10

[TEPaul]

Sully:

The discussion of removing so many bunkers from HVGC is of course just theoretical because it's not going to happen but if it could I think it would need to be done with a massive amount of fairway expansion.

And that brings to mind the app half dozen sets of contiguous holes that share some really interesting natural hazard features many of which are in trees.

Just imagine taking out all those interior trees that hide and minimize those natural hazard features between a number of holes and getting fairway as close to those natural hazard features as possible between those holes.

I think that would make that course completely awesome in play and also to look at.

[Garland Bayley]

Holes #9 and #10

Had to preserve the typo! Everyone knows HVGC has 3 9s and no 10s!  

[JESII]

Sean,

I am certain Tom is talking about the low side bunkering, he mentions the possibility of balls running into the next fairway...I was just being nice...Mark hinted at the same thing with his question about what Flynn would want the ball to do on #16.



How does the aesthetics of bunkering differ in the US as compared to the links courses of the UK? Why?

[JESII]

TEP,

It wouldn't be the first time HVCC set out ahead of the curve...

[Bryan Izatt]

Back to the original premise of this thread, the building of courses with no sand bunkering, I just played one yesterday that fits the bill - Raptor Bay by Raymond Floyd Design.

It has no bunkering - either fairway or greenside.  There are coquina shell waste areas along some fairways and near some greens but these really just are an alternative to rough and the ball typically runs through them into palmetto bushes.  

The land was typical Florida scrubland and swamp.  Hard to say if there was naturally occuring sand on the site, even though it is less than a mile to the ocean.  At any rate the site is flat so there was not a lot of natural elevation change to create natural gnarly grass pits and swales.  There are the usual Florida water features and pine forests to add sme definition to the design.  And a lot of palmetto infested scrubland bordering the fairway.  The lack of bunkering and the definition it provides is very noticeable.  On limited play it is hard to see the strategy required for each hole.  Bunkers seem to help define strategy on many courses.  The shot values of the course are provided mostly around the greens, most of which are raised with closely mown runoff areas.

The course plays 6702 yards to a par of 71.  The rating is 71.9 and slope is 129.  The lack of bunkers no doubt keeps the slope down, although I would guess that most handicap golfers would have some difficulty scoring to their handicaps on the course despite the lack of bunkers.

Here are some photos of some of the greens:

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

I like the look of those holes in those photos---eg there's some nice low profile "top lines". Those holes definitely look like the type anyone could play no problem. The next best step with architecture like that of course is for the place to really firm up the entire course. The only thing I generally don't like is when the top line of a green cuts off the base of the trees behind it as that last photo does a little bit.  

[JESII]

The only thing I generally don't like is when the top line of a green cuts off the base of the trees behind it as that last photo does a little bit.  

Tom,

How would you accomplish that (not cutting off the base of the trees behind the green) while also hoping to get water off the green?