Fairway bunker depth

[TEPaul]

Have not read this entire thread yet but my vote for "fairway bunker depth" would be basically anything and everything would be OK! Forget all about any kind of "formulae" of depth in relation to distance, the entire idea of "shot values", and even the risk/reward ramifications of individual shots from bunkers to greens, for instance! Just let randomness reign anywhere and everywhere with fairway bunker depth!

Why would I say such a thing? Because I think it will give any golf course a greater degree of what we might call the "experience factor"! Golfers will have to consequently play more by the seat of their pants, they'll have to use their eyes more, their memories better and concentrate more than they normally do with any kind of "formulaic" architecture! All in all this should teach them to pay more attention and the finer points of "strategy" will start to appear to them and occur to them better!

I feel the same way about almost every single major architectural feature--size of greens, width of fairways, angles, trees, anything! Larger greens for longer holes make sense but mixing it up with enormous greens for short holes or small greens for long holes (maybe with some compensating factor added), fairway width tailored to the topography on the hole in some interesting way, like maybe flatter basically narrower or canted or contoured maybe much wider etc! But there could be a lot more too like even one dimensional high demand at one extreme to something extremely wide to "fake out" an unobservant golfer!

But with fairway bunker depth I could sure see something like a very deep bunker INSIDE a fairly wide fairway that canted or contoured somehow! In this fashion the far greater depth of the bunker would offset its small size and actually psychologically RADIATE its "function" and "effectiveness".

And by function and effectiveness I don't mean the shot played out of it either and what that might mean concerning "shot value" or "risk/reward". I mean the quality and the "shot value" of the shot played to avoid it considering the "value" of its postion!

In this way I think holes start to take on much more meaning in an overall strategic sense where the shots start to have more meaning in relationship to each other instead of just an individual and incremental single shot sense which seems to be the way the modern golfer looks at golf and even its strategic ramifications!

I would say that if we want to call "strategy" just "tactics" which to me might better indicate the ramifications of individual and incremental shot risk/rewards and shot values, then we could get into this kind of depth vs distance formulaics, but if we want "strategy" to really be how all the potential shots on a hole relate to each other "strategically" it would be better to just forget any kind of "formulaics" and let "randomness" reign, in my opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Well, I was worried about you, having not seen many posts lately.  Good to have you back.  I can't wait to see your post on "defining shot values".

Since you haven't read the entire thread, I will startle you by saying I think you and I agree on lots.  Your third paragraph even hints at some of the formulaic adjustments I would make for fairway width using my rule of thumb "formula" - i.e., more cross slope equals wider fairways!  We both know - you perhaps intuitively as a golfer, and me perhaps through a more "scientific study" that a cross sloped fairway requires more room for a ball to roll out, so it must be wider!  

Your discussion of mixing up green sizes mirrors mine.  I just know, that if you accept that humans are creatures of habit (not hard) and that golf course architects are human (perhaps a bit harder) that we need to constantly remind ourselves to think out of the box!  That's why I keep my hip pocket list of concepts to review in each design (yeah, I this green site would be pefect for the short hole with the big honker green!)

The only reason I bother to think things through to get to any sort of rule of thumb, or concept check lists, is that at some point, I must go out on a cleared fairway (or stare at a blank piece of paper before that) look at a hole, and say what do we want to do here and why?  Every golf course feature should be designed (or left alone) giving careful consideration to its golf value!

And while I agree that when the finished product is out there, 15000 courses times 18 holes each, there is probably a good example of everything everywhere.  Probably many examples of things breaking every rule in the book that are much better than more convention design and/or thought processes.  Does that make a theoretical discussion about the factors that may make a bunker good/better/best on a web site devoted to golf design so easily dismissed in the name of randomness that we can't offer opinions on the "ideal"?

Architects don't have the luxury of saying "I could imagine this" or "I could imagine that."  The crux of my job is to say I will do this, or that!  There are several important values in having a strong philosophy of why that should be done a certain way- first, someone always asks "What the hell did you do that for" and a postive answer (even if you don't necessarily believe it ) always works better than a wimpish one.  Second, there are, as you suggest, infinite options, and really, anything does go, so having some sort of principles narrows the choice from infinity to a relatively manageable couple hundred or so, greatly easing the mental gymnastics that goes into designing a course!  

I agree that the position of the bunker is important as the recovery difficulty.  Patricks original question discussed the different postitions, and the shot values thread discusses how hazards/features are placed to influence play.  One one hand, feathering a high cut over a bunker at a given distance is the same challenge because of location, wind, etc. whether that bunker is 2 feet deep or 20.  But, as you suggest, the phycology of that shot is much different, as the penalty goes from nothing to two strokes.  My point was that if the bunker depth is related to a possibility of recovery about twice as good as failure, that the "temptation" Geoff writes about becomes the highest, thus enhancing the value of the bunker.

I like trying to articulate "deep thoughts" on golf design.  Admittedly, many are preliminary and subject to change!  Hey, you've got to believe in something as a starting point in design.  I believe in about the same percentage of golf design rules as I do the ten commandments! (hmmm, about 8 out of 10..... with the two changing weekly!)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think it would make a great topic for a new thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I touched on the "shot value" of the shot landing in the bunker, and how the configuration, internal and external, of the bunker alters that value.

But surely, you must believe in some orderly, rather than chaotic approach to design in general.

Something that makes common sense, and is thus repeated consistently shouldn't necessarily be labeled as "formulaic"

There is a reason most first holes don't face EAST and most finishing holes don't face WEST.  It's called the blinding morning or setting sun, and just because common sense would lead one to design a golf course which takes this into account, doesn't mean it's formulaic architecture.
 
Since you seemed to indicate that you tend to lean toward a random approach to golf course design, would you build or applaud a 465 yard par 4 hole with a 18 yard wide fairway ?

Would you have the same take on a 300 yard hole with an
18 yard wide fairway ?   Or, would the distance on the hole generally dictate some of the design features such as fairway width, bunker depth, green size, etc., etc. ?

I believe Merion and Pine Valley are courses near and dear to your heart.

Are there any consistent architectural patterns or design elements at Merion and Pine Valley, or are their designs so random that no particular patterns or consistent architectural features exist ?

[archie]

As to regularity of bunkers and formulaic ideas as to how they should be constructed don't you think most of the revered (great??) bunkers in the world generally are anomalies. The Principals Nose, Hell, Hells Half Acre and the like all seem to be a little different, maybe even aberrations. Perhaps we all get a little too concerned about fairness, which in golf , might not be as important as I once thought.

I think as I get older I'll like nasty, strange bunkers even more, particularly as I hit it straighter and shorter!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't really know that I would call the ideas I mentioned about "randomness" in architectural features "chaotic" as you did, but I think I understand exactly what you mean when you say that.

I'm really not against a certain "formulaic" in design features either but I would definitely cut "formulaics" in design short if it seemed apparent that golfers were starting to depend on the "formulaics" thoughtlessly or certain aspects of them and consequently failing to think or to not be presented with situations (ex. features that beget interesting and varied strategies) that surprised or inspired them into a variety of temptations (or cautions) with a total change of presentations or even apparently odd choices and odd situations.

I realize it's interesting with architecture to analyze any particular situation or immediate shot in the context of its particular "shot value", "risk/reward" ramifications etc and what it all means in an architectural sense and to also imagine that they should all have some "formulaic" or common sense ramifications. Far more interesting, I think, is for an architect somehow to induce a golfer to think when he's presented with a particular shot to have to think not just about the consequences of that particular shot but also the one following it or even the one after that--and at the same time or that very time he has only that one shot to execute! If an architect can do that I think he has really done something! And better yet, if he can do it without appearing to have planned it that way, then even better yet!

Sort of like the clever psychoanalyst, if the designer can get the golfer to somehow feel that he has succeeded or failed in an overall whole hole sense on his own without the aid or complicity of the designer,then I think the designer has probably done something very special architecturally!

Good questions about Merion and Pine Valley and how those shots, holes and courses fit into all this discussion! Later!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I have difficulty in understanding exactly what formulaic design means, since the term seems to be bandied about almost indiscriminately,  so perhaps you and others could define it for me, as it relates to golf course architecture and the design of individual holes.

What makes everybody conclude that formulaic design and thinking on a hole or individual shot are mutually exclusive ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

When some of us talk about "formulaics" in design and architecture we certainly might be talking in varying degrees and certainly in the context of this particular topic of fairway bunker depth. So this topic and others like it should never be looked at or disccussed in terms of just black and white--always in shades of gray--some of which may be much nearer black than others and the same on the other end of the spectrum at white.

The only reason I mention "fomulaics" at all in this topic is because you have stated that you feel that there should be a "consistency" throughout a golf course's architecture relating to the depth of fairway bunkering in direct relationship to the distance left to the green! Of course, I have no real idea HOW "consistent" you think architecture should get in this fairway bunker depth vs distance to the green relationship, but I'm certain you can understand that if it gets TOO "consistent" after a while the architect will have created a certain "formulaic" in his design in this area!

You may think this is a good thing, even a necessary thing in architecture, but I do not--and certainly not always--in every case and situation, in other words! Other contributors on this topic appear to not agree too that there should be a high degree of "consistency" either but maybe to various personal degrees of preference.

I'm not real sure either why you've made this "assumption" that a shot from a fairway bunker needs to have some "shot value" (even a high one) or some potential risk/reward connected to it that dictates that any golfer should have the ability to advance the ball all the way from a fairway bunker to a green!

It's true that various architects, past and present, have spoken and written about the potential for a golfer to do just that but certainly none of them said that was a necessary design requirment in all cases! And even if they seemed to say that, as Donald Ross may have appeared to in his book, it's clear he did not build all his courses and fairway bunkers that way!  

Sometimes it's necessary to read all of what a man like Ross said about these kinds of things! He certainly did say that an architect could concern himself with the idea of creating a fairway bunker where a golfer had a chance to play a ball all the way to a green with a high risk shot but he also said that whatever he said that appeared to be a "general rule" of architecture is sometimes best when broken by the architect!

That latter statement by Ross is probably something that you should concentrate more on when you think about, discuss or even propose "consistency" in architecture! And if you start to do that after a while you should probably arrive at why an  understanding of a certain "randomness" in architecture is both a good thing and an interesting thing for any golfer!

Anyway, when one talks about "shot value" out of a certain bunker, for instance, what is more interesting or exciting than the situation of say Jack Nicklaus trying to extricate his ball from TOC bunker with say an 8 iron straight ahead when he probably should have been using a wedge sideways? Neither shot was intended to come anywhere near the green but it was certainly a situation of interesting nuances of "risk/reward" and "shot value" anyway! And the fact that he may have made an over calculation on aggression thereby costing himself a few strokes and probably the tournament only made the situation better ultimately in the context of "tactics" and ultimately whole hole or even whole tournament "strategy".

So I hope you won't say that there is something wrong with TOC bunker in question architecturally because a play to a green may not have been potentially acheivable even for a golfer of Nicklaus's caliber in some depth to distance ratio!

At least I hope you don't say that--and if you don't you can probably then see how and why this kind of bunker done occassionally and randomly through a golf course can be a good thing architecturally even though it does not conform to some kind of "design consistency" that you might be proposing or advocating in a depth to distance relationship.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe mentioned the distinction between consistent and absolute.

I also never stated that a player must be able to advance the ball from the bunker to the green, only that the impediment to do so is in direct relation to the distance the bunker is from the green, in a non-penal bunker.  I view this design element as a consistent, though not absolute, fact of life.  

In discussing non-penal courses, I've asked on several occassions for anyone to name five golf courses where the bunkers at 210 yards are deeper than the bunkers at 160 yards, which are deeper than the bunkers at 100 yards.
I've never seen one, but my experiences are limited.  
So my conclusion, which may be flawed, is, there is a consistent pattern on Par 4's, in golf course architecture where fairway bunker depth is directly related to the distance the bunker is from the green.

And, I don't understand what's so terrible about that.  
Why anyone would affix the negative connotation of
formulaic, to that design pattern ?

The Nicklaus example you cite, is one more associated with judgement and common sense than bunker configuration.

I view this relationship between depth and distance as a common sense facet of golf course architecture.

But, that's just my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

".....only that the impediment to do so is in direct relation to the distance of the bunker from the green, in a non penal course."

I'm not sure I understand what that means in the context of consistent bunker depth vs distance to the green that you might be advocating.

As for five courses that have bunkers deeper (or effectively with Playability) at 210, 160, 100 etc.

I don't get around much so I can't name five but how about Royal County Down, Oakmont and Port Rush? There's a fairway bunker that's so tall at Port Rush it makes me feel like a gnat just looking at it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think Oakmont's bunkers are designed with the consistent reverse depth progression you suggest.

Never having played the other two I can't comment other than to ask, is this a consistent pattern or isolated instance, and are these courses penal ?

[Paul Richards]

TEPaul:

Also, the fairway bunker at Royal St. George's 4th hole.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

"Reverse depth progression" (Oakmont's bunkers)? What's that? Do you mean steep front faces?

I don't know about that but I will guarantee you that there are a number of fairway bunkers at Oakmont that depending where your ball ends up in them you don't have much of a play distance-wise and sometimes direction either! What I might call an excellent "randomness" of playabilities!

Port Rush and County Down? You ask is this a consistent pattern or isolated. It's neither! That's sort of what I'm trying to say to you, they're quite random actually, nothing particularly consistent or isolated just basically quite random--a little of all kinds of interesting things here and there.

And you ask if those two courses are penal. No not really! They're very strategic really and less penal than say Pine Valley is. But if you hit it in the wrong place at the wrong time sure you might pay a pretty severe penalty--that's just the way the ball bounces though--it's very random--again a little of everything here and there--but one could not remotely call them "consistent" in fairway bunker depth though!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Paul,

I'm not talking about a random, individual bunker, but a consistent pattern amongst all the bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Pat;

I know what you're talking about--we all do. You're talking about a consistent pattern amongst all the bunkers--just as you said! Personally, I think that kind of think is basically boring in architecture, it's formulaic, to say the least--said so many times!

Random doesn't mean individual either! But don't take my word for it--just look it up in the dictionary.

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

Well, then how about Ganton for nasty, gnarly, deep-ass
fairway bunkers?!?!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

I've never played or seen Ganton, so I'm afraid I can't respond to your question.