[Mark_Fine]

Ben,
I don't like white sand and NEVER recommend it.  Can't think of any course where bright white sand really belongs or looks good. Some might argue Augusta National.

Bunkers are not just about optics.  Same goes for flashing sand vs not flashing sand.  Some architects like to flash sand and some don't and some do both.  I could talk for ages about all the reasons why or why not to do it.  Tom makes a great point about the cost and challenge to maintain grass faces (as he said, that can at times be more difficult and expensive than raking up the sand). 

Bunkers are part of the early history of the game.  That is why very few courses don't have them.  I tried on a current project I have under construction as we speak to eliminate bunkers on one of the holes and it was met with great resistance from the committee.  Despite lots of education about why no bunkers on a hole can make sense, it can be a very hard sell.

Your point about using different grasses is a good one (many architects use that strategy to give the golf course different hues across the landscape) but it doesn't and won't replace bunkers. 

I think we are addressing a symptom and not the problem.  The problem isn't bunkers.  The problem is the use (maybe overuse) of bunkers and over the top maintenance of them.  And yes they are expensive to build and they can washout and create issues,... but greens are also expensive to build and maintain as are most aspects of a golf course.  I have said here many times, simpler can be better and less can be more if things are done well. 


John,
There is a special rake that you can buy to help smooth and compact the bunker faces.  We have used it successfully at Lehigh. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark's point about the early history of golf resonates with me. The game was invented by people, and its courses created & shaped by man, and sandy hazards-bunkers have been a feature of golf's fields of play since the earliest days, serving an important function. Any problems with bunkers today isn't as 'features' but as 'functions': I can accept that bunkers have become increasingly formalized (aesthetically and maintenance-wise) over the years, but it's annoying when they don't serve an interesting or challenging or strategic purpose. Keep the history, lose the sentimentality.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Bunkers are not just about optics.  Same goes for flashing sand vs not flashing sand.  Some architects like to flash sand and some don't and some do both.  I could talk for ages about all the reasons why or why not to do it.  Tom makes a great point about the cost and challenge to maintain grass faces (as he said, that can at times be more difficult and expensive than raking up the sand).


I think we are addressing a symptom and not the problem.  The problem isn't bunkers.  The problem is the use (maybe overuse) of bunkers and over the top maintenance of them.  And yes they are expensive to build and they can washout and create issues,... but greens are also expensive to build and maintain as are most aspects of a golf course.  I have said here many times, simpler can be better and less can be more if things are done well. 

Mark,


I was generally replying to Ed's comment about retail golfers;


"The visual aspect is pretty important to standard retail golfers, whether you like it or not. I've heard courses with few or no bunkers disdainfully described as "just playing in a big field"."


but since others commented along this same line I didn't specifically quote it.


I'd imagine for the retail golfers the style shape and color of the sand matter very little compared to the visual framing that the color contrast provides. But without that contrast, they would find the golf course incomplete and judge it inferior even before playing.


I've been a big proponent for years in limiting sand in places it's not natively found. I feel that too often bunkers are used as design crutches that architects rely on rather than really designing good holes. But for the average retail golfer, even when presented with a world-class bunker-less course, I wonder how interested they'd be without proper education. The Sheep Ranch fascinates me in this regard, although players traveling to Bandon are probably not your standard retail player.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom makes a great point about the cost and challenge to maintain grass faces (as he said, that can at times be more difficult and expensive than raking up the sand). 
 

When I worked for Mr. Dye, he was adamant that his grass-banked bunkers were less maintenance than the sand-faced bunkers favored by other designers.  After watching the fly-mo crew out at PGA West one day, I did not buy that argument any longer [even if they were only making $4 per hour back then].


The more I thought about it, I decided that the more steep and dramatic places you built into a course, the more it would cost to maintain, regardless of the style of bunkering.  But it would cost a lot less if that grassy bank wasn't a bunker face, and you didn't have to work around the sand at the bottom.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom makes a great point about the cost and challenge to maintain grass faces (as he said, that can at times be more difficult and expensive than raking up the sand). 
 

When I worked for Mr. Dye, he was adamant that his grass-banked bunkers were less maintenance than the sand-faced bunkers favored by other designers.  After watching the fly-mo crew out at PGA West one day, I did not buy that argument any longer [even if they were only making $4 per hour back then].


The more I thought about it, I decided that the more steep and dramatic places you built into a course, the more it would cost to maintain, regardless of the style of bunkering.  But it would cost a lot less if that grassy bank wasn't a bunker face, and you didn't have to work around the sand at the bottom.

Tom,


There are some steep bunkers behind a few of the holes at Mountain Lake. I couldn’t help feeling they were a hassle to maintain. I’m speaking of the grass not the sand at the bottom.

[David_Tepper]

Speaking of bunker-less golf courses:

https://www.linksmagazine.com/bunkerless-golf-courses/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insider1.24.21

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always ask, because I have seen superintendents argue grass vs sand face hard, both ways.  I think it may have something to do with sand quality in the area, rainfall, and other factors, so I just go with the flow....or flash.


In general, I agree with Tom.  Deeper bunker faces probably equal higher maintenance costs either way.  There are mowers than can hang one of their three gang blads over a steep bank, and thus machine mow from the top at nearly full speed.  So, any grass face deeper than that probably means some hand mowing.  And, maybe even less, depending on the turning radius up top, but many mowers can turn on their own radius.


For some reason (cost) many supers do not like growth retardants, but it would seem to me some use would eventually net enough savings to be worth it.  I get Primo or lower cost equals from my friendly supers, and it has always helped me reduce mowings of my front lawn, so I love it!

[Jeff Schley]

So how about doing pot bunkers with sod faces?  I know these have to be rebuilt somewhat often, what is the maintenance needed on these compared to sand faced, hard sand smooth faced, and grass faced?


There aren’t many example of sod faced pot bunkers in the USA I can think of off the top of my head.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()