Fairway Bunkers For Mediocre Golfers - Good Architecture?

[George Pazin]

Brian:  I have no idea what "present a problem or mode of play" means.  A bunker 180 yards off a tee presents no problem for a 5 handicapper who drives the ball 240 yards (let alone the scratch golfer who drives it 290).  And I don't see how it influences the better players' "mode of play."  It does, however, fall right in the wheel house of a lot of 20 handicappers who hit weak fades.  IMHO - bad architecture.

Why? Someone who hits it 180 (which is anything from a 200 yard mishit to a 160 perfect hit) isn't worthy of a challenge or a choice?


I've shared this story so many times many are likely sick of it. As a 22 index myself, I was placed as a a single with a threesome that consisted of a 60-something single digit golfer, a 50-something 20ish index and a 40-something 15ish index. I was longer with my irons only than all but the 40ish guy, who hit hit 3 wood just past my 3 & 4 irons.


At the end of the day, the old guy shot 75, the 40ish guy shot 85 and I shot 93. (I don't remember what the 50ish guy shot.) Where we hit the ball mattered little. How far we each hit the ball mattered NOT AT ALL. The old guy was straight and consistent (and way shorter than me), yet he chipped and putted to a 75.


Why do you wish to eliminate choice from a 65 year old who can chip and putt versus a bozo like me?

[Jim_Coleman]

   For the life of me, I don't get why so many feel I am trying to deprive the higher handicapper of fun and challenge.  Most of the challenge of bunkering is at the greens, where everyone is challenged.  And much of the challenge of driving the ball comes from interesting angles, rough, hazards, out of bounds, and trees, again challenging everyone.  And most fairway bunkers challenge most of the players, because the less talented players play shorter courses which bring most bunkers into play.  It's only the bunkers that challenge only higher handicappers that bother me.  They're not all that common, but when I see one I just don't get it.   I used the example of the fairway bunker on #10 at Augusta.  I believe it was built as a bunker to protect a green that was later moved.  I suspect it was kept because it is quite striking and is an homage to the hole's history.  And I suppose that's enough reason to leave it.  But architecturally, I think it's dumb.   If one is doing a restoration of a 90 year old course, and concludes that the original 11th hole had a bunker 200 yards off the tee, that is no reason today to place a bunker there instead of where it may be now - say 250 yards off that tee.  Only the higher handicapper will be punished by the new/old bunker, which is obviously not what the original architect intended.  I don't understand why what I am saying is all that controversial.  Maybe I'm just not saying it very well.

[Jeff Schley]

Brian:  I have no idea what "present a problem or mode of play" means.  A bunker 180 yards off a tee presents no problem for a 5 handicapper who drives the ball 240 yards (let alone the scratch golfer who drives it 290).  And I don't see how it influences the better players' "mode of play."  It does, however, fall right in the wheel house of a lot of 20 handicappers who hit weak fades.  IMHO - bad architecture.

Why? Someone who hits it 180 (which is anything from a 200 yard mishit to a 160 perfect hit) isn't worthy of a challenge or a choice?


I've shared this story so many times many are likely sick of it. As a 22 index myself, I was placed as a a single with a threesome that consisted of a 60-something single digit golfer, a 50-something 20ish index and a 40-something 15ish index. I was longer with my irons only than all but the 40ish guy, who hit hit 3 wood just past my 3 & 4 irons.


At the end of the day, the old guy shot 75, the 40ish guy shot 85 and I shot 93. (I don't remember what the 50ish guy shot.) Where we hit the ball mattered little. How far we each hit the ball mattered NOT AT ALL. The old guy was straight and consistent (and way shorter than me), yet he chipped and putted to a 75.


Why do you wish to eliminate choice from a 65 year old who can chip and putt versus a bozo like me?

Many bunkers are obsolete for low handicap golfers, but they represent a small percentage of rounds played at most courses.  I want bunkers to challenge me as George does for my weak fades because without them can't we say a course is not fair to the guy who draws it instead?  Or the lefty?  I appreciate some bunkers short of the landing area as mishits shouldn't be rewarded. Does it slow down the round?  Of course, but fully appreciate the demands of a shot off the tee.

[Ally Mcintosh]

   For the life of me, I don't get why so many feel I am trying to deprive the higher handicapper of fun and challenge.  Most of the challenge of bunkering is at the greens, where everyone is challenged.  And much of the challenge of driving the ball comes from interesting angles, rough, hazards, out of bounds, and trees, again challenging everyone.  And most fairway bunkers challenge most of the players, because the less talented players play shorter courses which bring most bunkers into play.  It's only the bunkers that challenge only higher handicappers that bother me.  They're not all that common, but when I see one I just don't get it.   I used the example of the fairway bunker on #10 at Augusta.  I believe it was built as a bunker to protect a green that was later moved.  I suspect it was kept because it is quite striking and is an homage to the hole's history.  And I suppose that's enough reason to leave it.  But architecturally, I think it's dumb.   If one is doing a restoration of a 90 year old course, and concludes that the original 11th hole had a bunker 200 yards off the tee, that is no reason today to place a bunker there instead of where it may be now - say 250 yards off that tee.  Only the higher handicapper will be punished by the new/old bunker, which is obviously not what the original architect intended.  I don't understand why what I am saying is all that controversial.  Maybe I'm just not saying it very well.

Jim, I do understand what you’re saying but I just don’t agree with it.


Maybe if a course is built specifically for PGA pro events. But for all levels of members, the bunker scheme needs mixed up with a big spice of variety. So many architects do not mix it up and I find those courses lacking something.


I play off a 5 handicap and I welcome holes where I’m not tackling bunkers at 275 and I welcome holes with carry bunkers at 200 yards and I love approach bunkers 40 yards short of a green when the best play is to bounce one in. I’ve found myself in bunkers 340 yards from the tee on par-5’s and I’ve thinned my tee shot in to a top-shot bunker at 150. Every bunker is in play for me and therefore every bunker is in play for 95% of members...


The homogenisation of bunker schemes is a real bug-bear of mine. Presently, a ton of our links courses are being changed with only the top golfer in mind and it kills me. It makes the courses less interesting for all but the elite, certainly for me as a 5 handicapper and certainly for those short hitters who used to have to think especially hard over those 2 or 3 bunkers placed in unsusual positions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One thing theoretical (and some real) architects miss is that every fairway bunker may affect the D player in their second shot as well as their first!  This got hammered home to me playing La Costa Champions with press, average players, and wives, after our renovation. 


We reduced bunkering to 138,000 SF (still an ungodly number) including some at different distances.  The number of times less skilled players topped their second shot into the bunker was staggering.  I can report it wasn't very much fun for any of them, and it led me to my current opinion of not littering any fw with bunkers.  (well, most, always room for one or two)


The general premise of locating fw bunkers include the fact that we can somehow predict how far golfers are going to hit it.  But, as someone noted, there are many 230 yard drives, hit poorly by 260 hitters, etc.  So, even accounting for wind, uphill/downhill, roll, etc. for someone who is reasonably consistent (enough to consider strategy) is hard enough.


Trying to locate a bunker to challenge a mediocre golfer who will probably top one in four tee shots is harder yet, and who hit their max tee shots about 180, but may only go 150 another quarter of the time, making it a low value proposition design wise, if on a budget, and maybe if not!  How would I know which hole they will hit it full on and put bunkers there?


Not to mention, for them, a good shot is airborne, more or less in the right direction, and at least 90% of the distance they hoped to hit it.  Based on playing with average golfers, I believe their expectations are that that shot shouldn't find its way into a bunker I thought might challenge them, it ought to roll as far as it can so they can enjoy it.


Does anyone have any real world experience often playing with average golfers (who aren't architecture buffs) that is significantly different?

[Thomas Dai]

And then there’s the (alleged) story about James Braid laying out a course without bunkers and on being asked why he hadn’t planned any replying along the lines of “wait 12-months, note where all the divots have been made and place the bunkers there.” A tall tale or a true tale?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Probably true, but you have to believe he would mean "very close to there."  Otherwise, he would fall in the penal school of architecture, punishing shots rather than setting them up.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Thank you Jeff.  You explained way better than I the problems with placing bunkers in places where the last thing a high handicapper needs is a bunker shot.  I think your observations also hold true on a 400 yard hole with a bunker at 180.  The high handicapper can't reach the green from the rough, let alone from a bunker.  How can that be fun?

[mike_malone]

If the main purpose of a bunker is visual then it makes sense to place it where the land dictates. Presenting a mode of play means to me that the bunker is a decision point. It makes you think about where you want to go in relation to it. You should take it on not avoid it.


  If you can’t reach the green from these fairway bunkers then it really doesn’t matter much about their penalty. The golfers you speak of aren’t reaching the green from  this yardage if there were no bunkers.


So it adds to the challenge of the game and creates strategy for the average player.


It adds beauty to the course as well. It contrasts with the green of the course.


Yardage is a consideration in the placement of “ mode of play” bunkers but only so that the bunker is a consideration for most not just a few players.


You mention the 11th hole as an example. I hit into the present bunker often and can reach the green if in the proper part. It’s a penal bunker because it sits right where you are supposed to hit the tee shot.
The original bunker would not allow me or any middling golfer to go for the green since it sat much closer to the tee but was off the ideal line of play.


Someone asked Aaron Copeland the meaning of Appalachian Spring. He said  that it had meaning but he didn’t know what the meaning was.


Flynn seems to have had this artistic sense to place fairway bunkers so that the game would be fun , challenging, and beautiful. He didn’t make it a rigorous mathematical thing.


You think you know how a course should be but Flynn seems to have more faith in randomness.


I know you are a lawyer and love to argue but I suggest that you study Flynn more rigorously with an open mind that he knew what was best for this piece of golfing land.

[Sean_A]

Jim

I think relying on greenside bunkers to give high cappers their share of thrills is shortsighted because often times even these bunkers are set up for low cappers...requiring high ball flight carries. I don't think anyone is saying there should be bunkers on every tee shot set at 180ish, just as that shouldn't be the case at 240ish or 290ish. To me, the high capper enjoys their thrills just as much as the low capper and needs thrills during all aspects of the game. As is usually the case, the essence of the question comes down to width.  If there is width then I am confident few high cappers would blame architecture for their failures.  I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

By far the bigger issue with high cappers is carry distance off tees.  On many of these aesthetically pleasing courses with rugged beauty, the carries off tees can consistently be in the 125-150 range.  If we want people to learn the game (hello women), we have to knock this kind of design on the head without creating so many sets of tees that players of mixed abilities become alienated from each other for 4 hours.   

Ciao