Cross Bunkers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Why do you feel cross bunkers succeed so well at NGLA and GCGC, especially when there are several of them at each course ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Kennedy,

Now, c'mon Jim...I can't believe you'd argue that the average golfer would rather lose a ball, stroke, and distance in a water hazard, then have to play a fairway bunker shot!  

Heck...my dad tries to hit fairway woods out of most of them, so they can't be all that damaging to the psyche', can they?

The examples you gave of Nicklaus & Duval are extreme to say the least.  In both instances, they found themselves near the steep walled faces of very, very deep bunkers, and probably both should have played out sideways.  

I think much more common today in the professional game is the fairway bunker at the Canadian Open, where Tiger launched a 200-yard 6-iron over water to win the championship.  On how many American courses does being in a fairway bunker mean the better player can no longer go for the green??

And speaking of slow play, any chance we can get the USGA to ban those long, water retrieval devices?  

[Steve Sayers]

After several days of struggling with UBB code, I’m finally able to post the picture of Lu Lu taken in 1924 (Thank you Craig for your perseverance).

For those of you not familiar with Lu Lu the cross-bunkers we hope to restore on 5 are located just right of center on the photo and are an odd shape.  Also the cross bunkers and peninsula green we hope to restore on 17 are visible along the far left side of the photo.  

While we are in the early stages of the restoration / master plan development with Ron Forse, it is likely the bunkers on 5 will be restored in their original position.  One of the bunkers still remains today as a grass bunker in the right rough and, for the most part, is out of play.

The bunkers on 17 will present more of a challenge in that we are unable to add length to the hole. For the bunkers to have the intended effect, they may need to be relocated although I think in their original position they would add interest and options to the hole for most of the membership.

Also, you can see Manufactures CC (Flynn) in the upper left of the photo.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Steve,
     Maybe my memory is fuzzy after just two and 1/2 months, but is the shortest cross bunker in the middle of #2 and the one in the left-middle of #3 still there?  I don't remember.  
      I don't remember you mentioning specifically significant tree removal on #14, which I think needs it perhaps the most, as they currently block most of the fairway on the drive.
    
For others,
     Note the clubhouse back then was on the other side of the road as it is now, and #1 was shorter, a par 4 back then.
  

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Very interesting. That's the photo Ron Forse used in Atlantic City. I know the course well but I'm having a hard time picking things out. The bunkers on #5 appears to be a bit farther from the green than 75yds.

#17 green and bunkering looks to be so unique. What do you mean exactly that if you restored it as it was that it would not work as intended? How do you'all see that it should work? What's the thinking on what should be intended?

The club sure did plant some trees, didn't they? Don't know what you're all going to do tree-wise but you should study that routing carefully and pick out where, if anywhere, there is some designed hole separation. I know LuLu is a tight site though.

[Steve Sayers]

Scott:

No the cross bunker on two is not there nor is the cross bunker on three -- it has changes shape greatly over years and is no longer a cross bunker but rather a bunker in the rough. In addition, there have been several bunkers added to 3, on sort of the original cross bunker on the right and two on the left.  With regard to bunkers in general, there are many that are missing that Ron Forse and the committee would like to see restored

We have started a tree removal project, and are currently concentrating on the less controversial ones (i.e. trees in front of bunkers creating a double hazard, trees growing IN bunkers, diseased trees, trees effecting air flow over greens, etc.).  As the restoration / master plan develops and we have a better understanding what Ron Forse has planned for holes such at 14, we will then be able to work on a tree removal project with a clear objective and the support of the membership.

TEPaul:

I agree the cross-bunkers on 5 appear to be more then 75 yards out from the green and perhaps they are – I was guesstmating when Mike C asked the question.  Looking at the photo, and using other features as a reference I would now guess they are between 100 and 75 yards out.  We’ll have to see on your next visit to Lu Lu.  

With regard to the 17th, I think the cross bunkers would add strategic value for a lager part of the membership in their original position; however, given they are being “recreated”, I believe we should look at the possibility of moving them to provide strategic value to the widest rage of payers.  This brings us back to the question when we are unable to add yardage to the hole is it best to more the bunkers to restore the intended strategic value to the hole for a large number of members or restore them to their original position and have them come into play for fewer members.  My opinion is to put them back in the original position.

As for the green complex on 17, I would love to see it restored as close to the photo as possible including the land bridge across the bunker, and the back left and right portions of the green recaptured.

See above comments regarding our deforestation project.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike Cirba,
Yes , I am serious. The #1 most feared shot by the vast majority of average golfers is one from the bunker, any bunker. The shot considered hardest by Professionals is the 50-60 yd. bunker shot. Your father is a wonderful exception and represents a smaller group of players.
I was attempting an answer to Jeff Brauer's comments that he was not sure why water was more acceptable than cross bunkering. Given the chance to have a heroic go at trying to clear a water hazard or a cross bunker, I think you'll find more players opting for the former.

[Patrick_Mucci]

GCGC has eight ( holes that could be considered to have cross bunkers, NGLA has nine (9) holes that could be considered to have croos bunkers.

How is it, that these abundant features enhance the play of the golf course, and at the conclusion of play, you don't feel that cross bunkering was overdone ?

[redanman (Guest)]

Note to Tom Paul

Donald Ross was my hero (One of them).  Can you see why in Steve's LuLu photo post?
What do you think happened there since then?  Good thing Flynn wasn't there.

Just smile.  

[TEPaul]

redanman:

I hear you and I do recognize your particular preference. As I said, I guess, on another post that many of the Eastern Pa, courses were farms and as such could have a wide latitude for the tree style they take into the future. They could stick with no trees like GCGC or they could perfect the "parkland" style with groups of trees out of play of shot angles that allow for "golf views" and  "golf vistas" interspersed by trees. Unfortunately too many of them treed themselves up far too much with isolated hole corridors which compromise aspects of the design.

On the other hand other sites were naturally treed and were used that way by their designers for a different overall style and also for an architectural style that used trees for the designed strategies of the golf holes. Certainly Flynn and Tillinghast were in that camp and even wrote about the varietal benefits of that!

I wouldn't have any problem with LuLu if it had remained as open as that aerial. I wouldn't have any problem with LuLu either if it had a "parkland" look with interspersed groups of trees and golf vistas.

But where I have a problem with you redanman is when you start recommending that a Pine Valley or a course that Flynn or Tillinghast clearly designed with the presence and use of trees remove all the trees from the site! That to me is about as contrary and destructive thinking as planting up a links course.

At some point I hope you come to grips with the fact that one size and style does not fit all in golf architecture and, as Mark Fine said in his post, that variety and diversity in golf architecture is the name of the game--and there is the occasional place for trees somewhere in that variety!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I couldn't agree with you more Tom. There is in fact a place for trees on a golf course--in the fireplace!

Not trying to start anything here, just interjectiong a bit of humor. However, seperation of holes for safety, which was more or less the cause of planting of so many trees is one of the great mistakes in this game.

Yes, there was a need to protect, but call me crazy, I haven't seen this to be too big of a proble on links courses which are just as tight.

[TEPaul]

Not sure what you're saying TommyN but the use of trees on a golf course for both strategy and for certain styles is as valid to me as those courses that are designed not to have trees.

If you don't agree with that you really aren't arguing against me but Tillinghast, Flynn, MacKenzie, Crump, Coore and Crenshaw, Hanse and many of the others.

Each and every golf course should be considered on its particular merits and design style. Recommending the removal of trees on all golf courses everywhere is to me the other side of the coin from those who recommend treeing up all golf courses. Both "one size fits all" mentalities are equally as destructive!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick.

Sorry for the delay in replying....It's been a long time since I visited either course (1995) so I consulted "Scotland's Gift - Golf" to refresh my memory on at least NGLA.

We may have a slightly different definition of cross bunkers, as I was envisioning ones that truly cross the entire fairway.  For instance, I consider the buners on both 4 and 8 "diagonal carry hazards", where you may be thinking of them as cross bunkers.  

I think the cross bunkers on 16 work great on the approach because of the punch bowl.  I have no problem with full carry hazards in front of a green, providing the green gives a bailout/backstop like this one does.

Really don't remember the details of cross bunkers like the tee shot on 5 as well, even after looking at the map.  But I guess I remember always having choice other than lay up/bomb away at that course, which in mind makes them something other than true cross bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I tried to qualify my post by saying "could be considered"
as cross bunkers, realizing that some were not bunkers that traversed the entire fairway.

Even at # 5 there is a narrow sloping neck that you can sneak into with a big pinpoint drive.  Hole # 3 probably best represents a true cross bunker, though # 10 and the old # 12 were probably as effective.

What I like about NGLA is that for every route, you have your consequences to deal with.  There seems to be risk reward with every shot, including alot of chips, pitches and putts.

A bunker that is not a cross bunker from one side of the fairway can be a cross bunker from the other side of the fairway, and I think that is really a neat feature.