[David_Tepper]

One cannot watch a golf tournament on TV these days without seeing repeated aerial views of the holes in play. No doubt the shapes  of the bunkers as seen from several hundred feet above the hole make an impression on the viewer.

Three questions:

1) Is viewing a bunker from this perspective in any way useful or relevant to evaluating or judging the design of a bunker?
2) When GCAs design a bunker, are they conscious of how it will look from an aerial view?
3) Should they be?

I am inclined to think the answer to all 3 questions should be "no." Isn't a course was meant to be judged thru the eyes of those playing the course, not by viewing the course from 500 to 1,000 feet above it?

     

 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The plan view of bunkers should matter not a jot to how you design and build them – no one sees them from this angle (this was always the problem with the Muirhead-esque themes from the sky).

That said, I was always drawn to unusual shapes when looking at a plan – or at least shapes that differed considerably from modern cut-out ameobas. Combined with some interesting placements (e.g. bunkers that don’t just sit at the 260-290 yard range), I do sometimes use aerial shapes as an indication that there might be something at least a little bit interesting with the course in question. It’s quite often an indication of courses from a more classic age when scouring google earth.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Aerial shots can be useful restorations. Not only for finding the placement of a bunker, but the sand edge, and if you are smart you will be able to figure out which parts of the face need to be built up in order to re-create it. If its a nice aerial, a shadow may be helpful as well.

[Lester George]

Plan view should never be a consideration to design.

Lester

[Jason Topp]

It was interesting to see the senior tournament at Fallen Oak.  The bunkers on that course give the place a very unique look and I looked forward to seeing it on television. 

From the cameras behind the greens, however, the bunkers are invisible.  Thus the course looked utterly boring during the telecast.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Aerial views shouldn't be considered, but since most bunkers start out at least conceptually as a squiggly line on a piece of paper, they tend to be considered that way.  I often had to teach the new guys on staff the problems with the squiggly shapes.

One of the biggest is that I prefer simple front edges with all the shape on the top of the bunker.  Once you build a small mound in front of a bunker to sort of shape an amoeba, you simply hide parts of it, and need to raise everything else behind it the same amount.  Also, most plan drawn bunkers have a narrow front to back dimension, but if you look at classic old bunkers, they aren't as narrow as they tend to get drawn.  If a bunker gets a little more dimensional depth along the line of sight to the golfer, it doesn't have to rise as steeply to be seen.

That said, I have actually traced and copied some nice aerial shapes in my computer for future bunker starting shapes.  Why? Well,  I realize I am as prone as anyone to tend towards drawing the same bunkers, and for shapers to shape the same bunkers.  I figure I can use those as starting points for some oddball shapes, varying dimensions of lobes, etc.  Too many bunkers come out nearly the same, since the width of the bulldozer blade becomes the prime determinant of size.  By drawing a bunker with wildly different configurations (inspired in part by those aerial photo parts) I at least get them started in a new direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaeger's comment has considerable merit.

Courses should have periodic aerials in their archives.

[David_Tepper]

Jaeger K. and Pat M. -

Yes, there is no doubt having aerial photos are good for archival purposes, to document how a course looked at certain times.

My question was more directed to whether viewing bunker shapes from aerial photos/views is a good way to judge the design qualities of bunkers vs. how they bunkers look to someone actually standing on the course.

Jeff B., Kelly Blake M. and Ally M. -

Thanks for your informative responses.

DT     

[Dan Kelly]

Aerial views shouldn't be considered....

Of course, there's an exception to every rule -- as shown here, on the Legends course at Giants Ridge:

-- or was that Lanny Wadkins' contribution to the design?

DK

P.S. Looking at that bunker anew, I see not just the Giant of the North Woods -- but the Olympic Torch. Maybe we'll see one of these babies in Rio!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

You will recall that the bunker also reads as a foot from ground level, as well.  I can't count the number of times a well meaning (or in the case above, just slightly off beat) architect cannot pull off a neat bunker concept because they cannot think in the 3D terms necessary to make it right.

For that matter, its not just bunkers, but bunker patterns.  I know a lot of courses with beautifully staggered bunkers in the fw, but they look nothing like those beautiful patterns at Cypress or elsewhere by Mac, Tillie, or Thomas.  In most cases, the architect draws them so the look nice on plan, but the first one cuts too far into the fw, blocking the view of all the next ones and taking what is supposed to be a gently zig zag fw and making it look like sharks teeth.

Making it look on the ground as you envision it on plan is a difficult task for many.

BTW, one of those kind of problems in the bunker above is that I couldn't make five toes look right.  Later, I found out that most cartoon characters get drawn with 4 toes for the same reason.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

There's only one view that counts, and that's the golfer's view of the architectural features.

Architectural features are intended to send a signal to the golfer's eye/brain.

And that/those signal/s is/are what influences them in their play of the hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()