Bunkers vs. Bunkers?

[Mike_Young]

I have been watching Tommy's post below "Which is Better?" One of the more costly maintenace items on a moderm course is the bunker.  IMO bunkers are used for aesthetics, strategy and site lines.  It is obvious that the most efficient bunkers in terms of maintenace are flat sand bunkers with minimal fingers.  Done in the proper fashion they are "solid" bunkers.  While these bunkers can help define a strategy and reduce a budget I think that many think of them as "less" in terms of design talent.  I agree that many of the premier courses we see today have some very exquisite bunker work with slopes, fingers and undulations that I appreciate.  Yet they serve the same strategic purpose while increasing the budget.
Do you guys think that the less complicated but solid bunker work is viewed as "less" design by many?

[ed_getka]

I would say that the "solid" bunkers you describe are certainly functional, but a shaggy edged, seemingly gaping pit comes across as more intimidating, even if in fact it is just as easy to escape from. This is coming from someone who finds bunker shots one of the easiest parts of the game (just to get out, not necessarily close). However, since most golfers are scared of bunkers, anything with sand in it will suffice.
   I think the most important function of bunkers is to get in a players head to cause uncertainty. If I flirt with or challenge the bunker carry will I pay too great a price. If the bunkers are shallow then they have no bearing on my mindset since I have no concerns about getting out, and for fairway bunkers I would rather be there when they are shallow than in the rough.

[Mark_Fine]

One of the reasons most of Flynn's bunkers looked that way they do is because he was a Superintendent first and an Architect second.  

[TEPaul]

I look at bunkering from a number of perspectives;

1/ They are that odd golf/architectural vestige of original golf (linksland) that although probably not completely necessary to golf as a few other features--eg tees, fairways, greens, have become almost an essential element in golf and architecture (although, again, frankly not completely necessary).

2/ Bunkering is truly one of a golf architect/designer's best expressions of both strategic creation and function as well as artistic expression.

3/ The look of them. Are they such that they appear naturally occuring or somewhat so (both shapes and grass surrounds) or are they artistically appearing or are they artifically appearing (man-made looking). This would be the aesthetic area of bunkering.

4/ The function of them. I look at this area in two ways which always includes their placement.

A/ the playability of their sand areas. Is it immaculately maintained and consequently easier to play from, or is the sand area less maintained, more random and iffy and consequently harder to play from.

B/ the playability of their overall architecture. Is it architecturally simple and shallow and consequently easier to play from, or, is it architecturally complex, deeper etc and consequently harder to play from.

Those four areas and a few subsets is the way I look at bunkers and particularly their function and playability. There's no question to me that generally the more natural appearance is more appealing to me and that the more difficult sand areas as well as the deeper and more complex architecture of bunkering (particularly complexity and depth dimension) makes for better and more meaninful strategy and playability.

[Willie_Dow]

Reading from Hugh Wilson notes 1915, not published but from the United States Department of Agriculture - NOTED  "Probably better omit this as it comes more properly under Golf Construction": about BUNKERS: "The question of bunkers is a big one and we believe the very best school for study is along the seacoast among the sand dunes."

More to follow if there is interest!  

[TEPaul]

Willie:

From Richie Valentine came the recent remark that his father once told him that Flynn said he never could construct bunkers as well as those Italians who built the bunkers of Merion!! And I suppose I should add that they somehow did it without the help of all that machinery Macdonald & Co used to restore them! That alone is pretty amazing don't you think?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Willie,
I would love to get a copy of that!

Tom, Given that it was EYETALIAN'S who built the Merion originals that at least SOME of us prized so dearly,saluting the work of true artesans. But it is a MUCCI-FACT* that the current versions were clearly the work of Pollocks.  

(*Defintion of the word "*MUCCI-FACT"-A non-disingenious version of facts substantiated by mission statements that were voted on by committee per learned experience of La Boca Vista Golf Club, all while on the attack with contrarian views of propaganda and bias; as per Funk, Wagonal & Rees Jones's most current printing of "The Terminolgy And Definitions Of Golf Club Atlas.com")

(It's required reading in Montclair, NJ.)

[T_MacWood]

Hambone
Any thoughts on the Western Euro vs Eastern Euro craftsmanship.