Fairway bunkers

[Mike Bodo]

I'm of the belief that land forms really should dictate the amount, if any, and placement of fairway bunkers.   As I see more and more courses I'm beginning to think that Bobby Jones and Doc Mackenzie were onto something at ANGC with their "less is more" concept, which is more easily accomplished on terrific rolling land as they had at their disposal.   There, cleverly routed and conceived holes  can let the land take the ball to its due reward or appropriate punishment through rolling.

It's more difficult to get the same effect, much less something approximating of "gravity golf" on flattish or dull land unless it's extensively shaped, so a reliance on a plethora of bunkering is more understandable in that setting.

I agree 100% with your POV. On flattish courses or holes it makes sense to introduce cross bunkers to influence and protect a particular line of play. On rolling courses with cambered fairways that can influence where a ball ultimately ends up, this is not necessary.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Had a great session on Google Earth last night. Not sure that the images I saw really match up with what is being said about cross/carry bunkers here.


From Shoreacres to Chicago Golf and from Pasatiempo to NGLA, and a good deal of the US "Top 25", I saw cross bunkers on almost every course.


I am not an expert.
Most of my rudimentary bunker knowledge was absorbed through occasional discussions with Jim Urbina. His 2015 article in Links Magazine makes some interesting observations:


https://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/5-myths-about-bunkers


5 Myths About BunkersArchitect Jim Urbina says we no longer understand their true purpose
Appeared in August 2015 HOTLINKS
Architect Jim Urbina says we no longer understand their true purpose

1) Bunkers are there to penalize golfers

Nothing could be further from the truth. The great old-time architects said a hazard isn’t just for punishment but to make the game more interesting. Golfers take bunkers personally: Those of us in the design business see them in the exact opposite way. Robert Hunter wrote, “Without hazards, golf would be a dull sport.”

2) You should be able to advance the ball from a bunker

Why? Sometimes golf, like life, isn’t fair. The original bunkers were totally natural, which meant sometimes it was impossible to move the ball forward from them. We’ve since made our own rules and now demand the ability to hit out of a bunker all the way to the green. But that wasn’t always the original purpose.

3) Maintaining them is important

We spend too much time and money maintaining bunkers. Due to expensive sands and labor costs, what should be among the cheapest parts of a course to maintain are the most expensive. They’re hazards, not gardens, and don’t need to be beautiful let alone neat and tidy.

4) They should not be in the middle of a fairway

If you hit a great shot down the middle and it finds a bunker then it wasn’t a great shot. A hazard is often placed for strategy, and one in the fairway is telling you that’s not the best place for hitting to the green. The game requires thought and skill, and sometimes the right play isn’t the obvious one. Same with bunker placement.

5) What you see is what you get

C.B. Macdonald said it can take years to discover and appreciate the hidden qualities of a bunker. Take the time to study the bunker—where it is, how it’s shaped and looks—over and over again. A good bunker makes you think and, as all the greats said, makes a course more interesting.</blockquote>

[Ian Andrew]

1.  The best fairway bunkers usually protect the best angle of approach.

2.  I am generally not a big fan of carry bunkers because they rarely pose an interesting question to the golfer.  The player can either carry them or cannot carry them and adjusts accordingly.

3.  I like a wide variety of depths with fairway bunkers.  Really deep bunkers pose interesting questions on the shot to the area of the bunker and shallow ones allow for one to hit the green. 

4.  Finally, there should be some randomness to bunkers rather than a specific formula.  The best courses feel like contests with nature.  Most courses seem as if they were built with a protractor.

Jason,


Have a good look at Shinnecock Hills (perhaps using Google Earth). It's one of the greatest examples of angles and carry angles in the game. Worth looking at and considering. Not asking you to change your opinion, but I think it will be a fun exercise and worth pondering a little.


Enjoy the afternoon.

[Mike Bodo]

5 Myths About BunkersArchitect Jim Urbina says we no longer understand their true purpose
Appeared in August 2015 HOTLINKS
Architect Jim Urbina says we no longer understand their true purpose

4) They should not be in the middle of a fairway

If you hit a great shot down the middle and it finds a bunker then it wasn’t a great shot. A hazard is often placed for strategy, and one in the fairway is telling you that’s not the best place for hitting to the green. The game requires thought and skill, and sometimes the right play isn’t the obvious one. Same with bunker placement.

Although I don't necessarily have a problem with having a bunker in the middle of a fairway, it really depends on the strategic options that are available to the golfer. Take the 15th hole at Oakland Hills, for example: A dogleg left with a large bunker in the middle of the fairway. Playing from the tee when I caddied there you had four options. 1) Play to the right of the bunker and have a long second shot to a raised, undulating green that ran from front to back (one of the most difficult greens on the course, IMO). 2) Play to the left of the trap in which the landing area separating the bunker from the rough and trees was very narrow 3) Try hitting over the bunker with your drive, which left you a short iron to the green or 4) Play short of the bunker leaving a really long second shot into the green?


Before the age of metal woods only the longest hitters could clear this bunker with any type of consistency. Now I doubt the bunker even comes into play for the above average golfer, rendering it little more than a visual enhancement or impediment - take your pick. The question this raises is what should become of a fairway bunker when it no longer serves its intended purpose? Should it be removed, moved to a different location on the fairway so that it is in play more often than it is not or, if it's not harming anything, should it be left alone?

[JJShanley]

I prefer centreline, diagonal carry and cross bunkers the most.

What distinguishes the carry bunker from the diagonal carry and cross bunkers? 

[JC Urbina]

Ian,


I do remember saying something to that effect, it really is true.  Players of all abilities take bunkers personally. As we discussed that day at Glen View, green committees should not see bunkers individually but as a whole.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for highlighting JCU's article. Seems a very nice summary.
Atb

[Jason Topp]

1.  The best fairway bunkers usually protect the best angle of approach.

2.  I am generally not a big fan of carry bunkers because they rarely pose an interesting question to the golfer.  The player can either carry them or cannot carry them and adjusts accordingly.

3.  I like a wide variety of depths with fairway bunkers.  Really deep bunkers pose interesting questions on the shot to the area of the bunker and shallow ones allow for one to hit the green. 

4.  Finally, there should be some randomness to bunkers rather than a specific formula.  The best courses feel like contests with nature.  Most courses seem as if they were built with a protractor.

Jason,


Have a good look at Shinnecock Hills (perhaps using Google Earth). It's one of the greatest examples of angles and carry angles in the game. Worth looking at and considering. Not asking you to change your opinion, but I think it will be a fun exercise and worth pondering a little.


Enjoy the afternoon.

Ian - My comments relate to a carry bunker in terms of an all or nothing carry such as Hell's Half Acre.  Angled bunkers are a very different proposition.  An angled bunker provides an interesting decision for almost everyone because their line adjusts. 

Nonetheless, I do think they can be overused.  A player who carries the ball an additional 10 yards will have a significant advantage over another player without the existence of hazards.  An angled bunker multiplies this advantage - if a hole doglegs left and the bunker is angled is 45 degrees with the longer carry on the inside of the dogleg, 10 extra yards of carry means that the longer player can both hit the ball farther and aim 10 yards farther left. 

For example - looking at the first hole at Shinnecock, A player who hits the ball 243 yards from what appears to be the middle of the tee over the bunkers at the corner will be left with 135 or so to the middle from an ideal angle.  A player who cannot make the carry and hits it 233 left of the bunkers is left with about 165 yards and a worse angle.    I do not argue that this makes the hole (or the bunker) a poor one - quite the contrary.  Nonetheless, the design gives a very significant benefit to someone who can carry those bunkers.  An endless diet of such a formula means that the design of the course values carry distance much more than other aspects of the game.

I would argue that technology has already made carry distance more important than it once was.  Compared to the 1970s and 80s, the driving distance of the average player has not changed much, but the distance of the longer player has increased dramatically.  Therefore, in this age, I believe figuring out ways to tempt the player without going too far in the direction of rewarding pure carry distance is something to strive for.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ian,


I do remember saying something to that effect, it really is true.  Players of all abilities take bunkers personally. As we discussed that day at Glen View, green committees should not see bunkers individually but as a whole.

Jim -


Also remember something else that relates to cross bunkers.


You, me and our head pro sat in a cart (the horror!) and watched 5-6 groups of ladies tee off on GVC's 7th hole - a par 3 that plays 130-170 yards. You were advocating putting back in the cross bunker on a Par 3 (!!) that Flynn had put in 1922 (about 30 yards short of the hole) but had since been removed. Very much like #3 at Pasatiempo, but not as dramatic.


We watched as 50% of the tee shots hit would have (hypothetcially) gone into the proposed bunker.
"The ladies will freak out if that bunker goes in. It's not fair." I said.
"Who said golf has to be fair?", you countered...."But, it should be fun."


.....and the bunker is there today...;-)


It looks great, frames the hole beautifully and presents a challenge to many golfers as they must clear the bunker to access the green in regulation.

[Jason Topp]

Shinnecock appears to be a good example of varying the locations of the bunkers so that the carry advantage I discussed in my last post sometimes exists and sometimes does not.  Holes 3, 5, 8, 12, 14 and 16 have bunkers that appear to challenge the outside of the dogleg and actually bring them more in play for the longer hitter.  Others, like 1 have them on the inside.  To my mind, mixing it up in this fashion is a great model.

[Thomas Dai]

I would argue that technology has already made carry distance more important than it once was.  Compared to the 1970s and 80s, the driving distance of the average player has not changed much, but the distance of the longer player has increased dramatically.  Therefore, in this age, I believe figuring out ways to tempt the player without going too far in the direction of rewarding pure carry distance is something to strive for.

Good point Jason.
I play at different times with modern equipment, hickories and persimmons/blades. When fairways are reasonably firm there's not much difference in overall distance terms for me between a modern 460cc titanium driver, a persimmon from the 60's-90's nor a hickory shafted tee club from a time well past.
The trajectory is massively different though, and thus the carry. Hazards that can be carried with modern equipment, and this includes all clubs not just those ised from the tee, have to be played around hazards with older gear. And forced carries, as has been discussed herein many a time, are not friendly to the lessor player, ladies, seniors and youngsters.
Seems like something has been lost over the decades, not just equipment wise but architecturally as well (and fun?).


At a tangent to the bunker debate.....the rules.


Once upon a time you could take a penalty drop out of a bunker. Now you can't. Once upon a time the skilful or brave (or foolhardy) player could give a shot from an evil bunker 'a go' whereas the lessor or weaker (or smarter?) player could take a penalty drop. It would be nice if this were still the case. It would, amongst other things, mean we could have more evil bunkers (even unraked ones!) as those who feel unable or unwilling to play from them have another option. Perhaps a two shot drop penalty rather than a one shot though.


Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

   Last time we talked in person at the Mashie you had not played Huntercombe.  I recall in your Anatomy book that you weren't fond of Grass Bunkers.  Has that opinion changed at all since playing Huntercombe?

Ben,


Actually I've still not played Huntercombe ... the day of my visit there was a society match, so I could only walk around and observe.


I have never been fond of the idea of "grass bunkers," especially when they are shaped to look like a formalized depression.  A grass bunker is really just rough, and rough is fine in its own right, it doesn't need to be over shaped.


I have seen several courses in the past few years that had cool mounding and adjacent depressions as a feature instead of bunkering ... if you liked what you saw at Huntercombe, you'd like Yelverton and Minchinhampton Old even more.  I could see building a course like that someday; in fact we started to do some of that at The Loop, but got away from it the next spring when we started back up.  But it's easier to pull it off when you've got old mine workings and quarry pits as a starting point, instead of just deciding to make them all yourself.  If you built something like Huntercombe from scratch, I think most Americans would find it very strange, and not really give it a chance to prove itself.

I guess this is what makes this site interesting but I disagree completely with Tom on the grass bunkers are just rough. A grass bunker cut at fairway height offers the player a real hasard that is completely different test of golf to the slog that rough usually is. Designers, especially modern designers are often too quick to resort to sand bunkers instead of considering the alternative, often more elegant option offered by a grassy hollow or knob.


Jon

[Mike Bodo]

I guess this is what makes this site interesting but I disagree completely with Tom on the grass bunkers are just rough. A grass bunker cut at fairway height offers the player a real hasard that is completely different test of golf to the slog that rough usually is. Designers, especially modern designers are often too quick to resort to sand bunkers instead of considering the alternative, often more elegant option offered by a grassy hollow or knob.


Jon

Do you have an image of a grass bunker cut at fairway height you can share and post? I've never seen one, which is why I ask. I've only come across sand bunkers converted to grass, but cut at rough length. I question why anyone would spend the money required to maintain and service a bunker like this given you would need a walking mower more than likely to keep it cut at the required length. Also, is the penalty to the golfer the awkward stance they would have on a tight lie and not being able to ground the club? I guess I don't see this being any worse than having to contend with a severe downhill, uphill or side-hill fairway lie with the exception of not being able to ground the club.

[Jason Topp]

I guess this is what makes this site interesting but I disagree completely with Tom on the grass bunkers are just rough. A grass bunker cut at fairway height offers the player a real hasard that is completely different test of golf to the slog that rough usually is. Designers, especially modern designers are often too quick to resort to sand bunkers instead of considering the alternative, often more elegant option offered by a grassy hollow or knob.


Jon

Do you have an image of a grass bunker cut at fairway height you can share and post? I've never seen one, which is why I ask. I've only come across sand bunkers converted to grass, but cut at rough length. I question why anyone would spend the money required to maintain and service a bunker like this given you would need a walking mower more than likely to keep it cut at the required length. Also, is the penalty to the golfer the awkward stance they would have on a tight lie and not being able to ground the club? I guess I don't see this being any worse than having to contend with a severe downhill, uphill or side-hill fairway lie with the exception of not being able to ground the club.

Do a search for Kington, Rye or (EDIT) Huntercombe for a few examples. A US example is the trench on 14 at Pasatiempo

[Mike Bodo]

Okay, I did as you asked and still question the validity and purpose of grass fairway bunkers.




Below is what I would call a legitimate grass fairway bunker from Tacoma Country Club. Again, I don't see this as being as nearly as penal as a sand bunker and the cost for upkeep, I'm sure, is more than a traditional sand bunker.







Now, here's an image of the 'trench" on the 14th at Pasatiempo. This does not qualify as a fairway bunker, as it is nothing more than a unique landscape feature that is part of the fairway itself. I personally think it's neat as all get-up, but the fact that it can be cut and maintained by a tractor mower eliminates it from the from fairway bunker consideration.







Here's a really cool grass green-side bunker at Huntercombe, not a fairway bunker, mind you. That said, I would think this would be more penal than a sand-filled bunker simply because it would be literally next to impossible to get the same type of spin on the ball as you would out of sand to have any sort of control over how it releases when it hits the green. With the pin positioned where it is in the photo, good luck getting the ball to stop anywhere near the hole unless you have mastery of the flop shot. On a separate note, the green complex itself freakin' ROCKS! Even if you didn't have the large depression in front making it appear more menacing than it really is, it would still be killer.







Grass bunkers without question have their place in golf. I still agree with Tom, however, that grass fairway bunkers are pointless even if they are aesthetically pleasing.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,


sand bunkers are much more expensive to maintain than grass bunkers for a start. The first photo you posted which you claim is an example of a legitimate grass bunker is obviously a SAND bunker during construction with a grass lining which will be sprayed out before the sand is put in.


It is certainly much harder to nip the ball up and out of a tight lie in a grass bunker than from sand which is pretty easy to play out of. I find it strange that Tom would say grass bunkers are pointless particularly as he then goes on to say he would like to design a course with only grass bunkers.


Jon

[Sean_A]

The hollows at Huntecombe are not fairway height.  There tends to be lightish rough in all of them, but a few have more serious rough.  Usually, it is the fact that you are now well below fairway/green height which makes the shots more more interesting than merely rough. 

Kington generally does have its hollows at fairway height (thank you sheep), but the fairways are not cut at Augusta levels!  That said, there are very few fairway hollows and these do tend to have minor rough.  More importantly, the hollows are extremely well placed, same for Huntercombe.  At Kington, its the awkward lies in these fairway hollows which are difficult to cope with.  I don't think they work quite as well as at Huntercombe.  Its the hollows with spoil tipped over which are more effective.  Still, I don't want to be in a hollow because the lie is always in doubt....a good thing I think. 

Like Jon, I do think Tom is mistaken to simply write off hollows as rough.  They do pose different questions and add variety. Also, I am 99% sure that in the UK, the hollows are cheaper to maintain than bunkers.  I rarely see anything pointless about a well placed feature.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

"Here's a really cool grass green-side bunker at Huntercombe, not a fairway bunker, mind you. That said, I would think this would be more penal than a sand-filled bunker simply because it would be literally next to impossible to get the same type of spin on the ball as you would out of sand to have any sort of control over how it releases when it hits the green. With the pin positioned where it is in the photo, good luck getting the ball to stop anywhere near the hole unless you have mastery of the flop shot."

Mike,

There is another side to the coin in that golf is for all levels of skill including lessor players and lessor players usually find shots from grassy hollows easier than from sand filled bunkers whilst better players usually find it easier to get closer to the pin from a sand bunker than from a grassy hollow.

Atb

[Mike Bodo]

"Here's a really cool grass green-side bunker at Huntercombe, not a fairway bunker, mind you. That said, I would think this would be more penal than a sand-filled bunker simply because it would be literally next to impossible to get the same type of spin on the ball as you would out of sand to have any sort of control over how it releases when it hits the green. With the pin positioned where it is in the photo, good luck getting the ball to stop anywhere near the hole unless you have mastery of the flop shot."

Mike,

There is another side to the coin in that golf is for all levels of skill including lessor players and lessor players usually find shots from grassy hollows easier than from sand filled bunkers whilst better players usually find it easier to get closer to the pin from a sand bunker than from a grassy hollow.

Atb

Thomas -


Pleasure to me you and everyone chiming in on this subject, which I find fascinating. I agree wholeheartedly with you that lessor players may prefer to hit out of the grass bunker than a sand bunker. However, my original point that the shot would be easier and more predictable to control out of sand is still valid. Given the type of golfer I am, I prefer sand to rough as the lies in sand are typically more consistent provided the ball isn't buried or plugged. In a grass bunker that's not cut to fairway length, you have no idea what type of lie you're going to end up with to a greater extent. That said, the hole that came to mind that could be replica of the Huntercombe green I posted is is the 16th at the TPC in Sawgrass. Were you to convert the sand bunker surrounding the green on that hole to grass you'd almost have a spitting image of Huntercombe, albeit the green is oriented differently. I'll be curious to see how Tom responds to some of the prior comments, but I'm still not a big proponent of fairway grass bunkers, but I do like fairway idiosyncrasies, such as the trench on the 14th hole at Pasatiempo, provided they are predominately natural and are not too contrived or influenced as a result of land shaping.


PEACE!


Mike

[BCowan]

Brae Burn in Plymouth, MI the back 9 is a Wilfred Reid course.  It has 2 or 3 holes with awesome green side grass bunkers.  6 of us played in snow flurries last spring and remarked how cool the once sand bunkers had become turned into grass.  I regret not getting photos of them last summer, especially since it was drought and the course doesn't drain well.   They did remind me of the Huntercombe photos.  Then a hole or 2 had filled in greenside bunkers that were turned into bunker ponds on purpose 

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,


if you prefer sand because you say  'Given the type of golfer I am, I prefer sand to rough as the lies in sand are typically more consistent provided the ball isn't buried or plugged[/size]' [/color][/size]then you miss the point that the bunker is supposed to be a hasard. I understand why you think the way you do but personally I prefer variety and challenge over consistency, predictability and so called fairness. Still, each to his own,[/color]


Jon