News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Voytek Wilczak

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« on: March 18, 2006, 11:55:46 AM »
The recent thread with pics of Royal Melbourne West and my thoughts about Bethpage Black lead me to this question:

Given a piece of a rolling, ample, and varied terrain, would you build huge, intimidating, deep green-side and fairway bunkering like at Royal Melbourne or Bethpage Black?

For example, like at Bethpage Black 4th, where, visually, the bunkering just takes over?

It is pretty intimidating to execute a long uphill approach shot to an elevated green with deep, receding bunkers on all sides.

The majesty of elevation changes combined with huge, deep bunkers strategically placed to visually intimidate is very appealing to me.

Can you guys name a few courses that fit that bill?


Dave Bourgeois

Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2006, 12:06:48 PM »
I saw the title of the thread and though of Bethpage as well.

I haven't played Yale, but from the looks of the profile seems to be pretty rolling with some good deep bunkers.  I'm sure others will chime in on this.

Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2006, 02:04:52 PM »
Voytek, you refer to both visual and psychological intimidation. Among great rolling parkland courses, it seems like 75% or more have bunkering that is intimidating in some way, but that the mode of intimidation varies a lot.

The Raynor / CBM bunkering style (at Yale and elsewhere) strikes me as based on psychological intimidation ("steep and deep") rather than the visual intimidation of looking out a massive sea of sand. A lot of Dye courses (The Ocean Course, Blackwolf Run River) seem to fall into the "deep rather than visually bold" category as well.

The MacKenzie style strikes me as based primarily on visual intimidation, especially at Cypress Point, RM, and Pasatiempo (although RM's got some pretty deep bunkers too).  I think Pasa probably fits into the same category of "rolling terrain, deep bunkers" as RM and Bethpage, though if I recall correctly the bunkers aren't quite as deep.  Augusta, even though it's got some thoroughly bunkered greens, is an exception: rolling parkland without intimidating bunkering.  The "Augusta style" (Peachtree, etc.) seems like accounts for a decent share of the other 25% of great rolling parkland courses, but it isn't really Mac's style.

Tillinghast strikes me as more of a chameleon.  At Bethpage, the bunkering is as in your face as anywhere.  At Winged Foot, it's just as dominating strategically but less dominating visually:  when I read Tillie's description of WFW as a "man-sized course," I always think that Bethpage must be a giant-sized course, at least in terms of bunkering visuals.  Fenway and SFGC seem closer to Winged Foot than Bethpage, but probably somewhere in between.




Voytek Wilczak

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2006, 03:42:01 PM »
...snip...I always think that Bethpage must be a giant-sized course, at least in terms of bunkering visuals.  

Jay: to confirm your correct thoughts on the immense size of Bethpage, just check out our own GCA review:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/bethpage1.html

I think I like'em (bunkers) both psychologically and visually intimidating (ie both "steep and deep" around the green and "you see nothing but sand when you gaze towards the green").

I kind of miss that style in the newer courses.

I guess I like Tillinghast a lot.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2006, 03:43:53 PM by Voytek Wilczak »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2006, 04:00:16 PM »
Lawsonia.....

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2006, 04:28:56 PM »

The majesty of elevation changes combined with huge, deep bunkers strategically placed to visually intimidate is very appealing to me.

Can you guys name a few courses that fit that bill?



The Mother Ship!






Mark Arata

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2006, 04:37:22 PM »
It has been a few years since I played it, but I didnt remember that many giant bunkers at Lawsonia....I remember the greens being pushed up high, and a lot of falloffs into deep grass, and then flattish bunkers around that, but no big huge ones like Sand Hills or Bethpage or anything like that.....

I am getting old in a hurry though..........
« Last Edit: March 18, 2006, 04:39:58 PM by Mark Arata »
New Orleans, proud to swim home...........

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2006, 04:46:53 PM »
Mark,
  If the green is up high, and the bunker is flat, that still counts as a deep bunker. ;) ;D Think left greenside bunker at Fishers. 8)
« Last Edit: March 18, 2006, 04:47:35 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2006, 04:53:17 PM »
I think an interesting contrast to the monster bunkers at SH are the small, minimal and few bunkers at Carne. The terrain and sand base are similar. Maybe some sharper edges at Carne. On the new 9 at Carne, should Jim Engh build small Carne bunkers or big Sand Hills like bunkers? Let assume they would let Engh create some larger bunkers later on the original 18.


Mark Arata

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2006, 07:56:45 PM »
VERY FUNNY ED! You know what I meant......

revenge shall be mine!  ;D
New Orleans, proud to swim home...........

Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2006, 08:29:41 PM »
I think an interesting contrast to the monster bunkers at SH are the small, minimal and few bunkers at Carne. The terrain and sand base are similar. Maybe some sharper edges at Carne. On the new 9 at Carne, should Jim Engh build small Carne bunkers or big Sand Hills like bunkers? Let assume they would let Engh create some larger bunkers later on the original 18.

Mike,
Is the terrain at Carne really similar to the terrain at Sand Hills?  I've never had the privilege of being to either, so my comments are informed only by pictures (i.e., very poorly informed) -- but it seemed to me that Sand Hills was much more a rolling progression of ground while Carne had sharper slopes (as you said), a more uniform base grade, and fewer steady 50+ yard inclines. Given those differences, I don't think Sand Hills-style bunkers would "fit" on Carne terrain.

Even if they would, I say Jim Engh should stick to small Carne bunkers - and, more importantly, to minimal bunkering.  Variety is the spice of life.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Rolling terrain, huge bunkers
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2006, 09:14:15 PM »
You would have to be very careful building big blowouts on a course like Carne.  With their minimal maintenance budget, they could not afford to do all the work to replace sand as Sand Hills does, and over the course of a few years they could lose control of the sand and suffer from serious wind erosion issues.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back