Everything goes in cycles - are bunkers next?

[Mark_Fine]

Tillinghast is almost as famous for the layouts he designed as he is for traveling the country and removing bunkers that he believed were superfluous and/or not really needed on countless courses. 

Is this the next cycle we will see in course design?  We all have to admit that even on the best courses, there are often bunkers that really would not be missed if removed.  If there is one good thing that has come out of the changes to Augusta National it is that at least when it comes to bunkers, less can be plenty 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Already started, I think. At least, I have been called to nearly a dozen courses (many mine) to reduce overall bunker sizes, total number of bunkers, and reduce shape.  I have reduced overall bunker size from about 100K as standard to 50-75K. I noticed something from a Fazio post about 85,000 SF of bunkers, and at one time, his plug number was 125,000 or more.


A post on another thread got me to thinking whether all fairway bunkers should be eliminated.  Think about it, the typical hole has 2 acres of fw, 4 acres of rough. A fairway bunker would be lucky to be 0.1A (4300 SF) and more likely to be 0.05AC, about 2000 SF.  What's chances you hit that small area?  Granted, if it were located right where someone wanted to hit it, the chance might go up.

[Tom_Doak]

If we get a green light to restore Bel Air as George Thomas left it, that means I will be taking out nearly half of the bunkers that are there today, just to get back to Thomas's intent!


Also, Mark, Augusta has resisted change by adding more trees instead of more bunkers ... not exactly a great example to set for everyone.

[Sam Kestin]

Tom--


Curious how you went about the process of establishing Thomas' intent at Bel-Air. I was fortunate enough to grow up as a junior member at Riviera and it was my enjoyment of his work that generally inspired my interest in the game at large as well as specifically in golf course architecture.


One of these days I want to do some writing on Thomas, Riviera and somewhat generally the views on strategic architecture that he felt were the soul of the game.


I'll take all the advice I can get from someone who might know some great places to start in this regard!

[Joe Hancock]

Probably another thread topic, but bunkers get discussed a lot in the context of strategy and such, but I've found several instances where I want to direct golfers away from tight areas with a bunker or two versus a tree or two.


Whether adding or subtracting bunkers, I'm convinced that all the ramifications of such aren't revealed immediately, regardless of how brilliant the recommending agent thinks(and tells you) they are.

[Greg Tallman]

We have just completed a course wide bunker renovation program on The Ocean Course at Cabo del Sol. In the process we removed 19 existing bunkers, reduced the size of another half dozen or so.  We did add 4 or 5 so the net was 14 or 15 fewer bunkers.

The gentleman who has played more rounds on the course than anyone struggled to identify where bunkers were removed which is encouraging in that it seemingly indicates they were not integral to the design of the course.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I am doing the same.  Taking many more out than adding. 

Tom,
I was going to say that about Augusta but didn't want to get into a tree thread.  Yes I despise many of the newly added trees there    especially on #15 and #17 to name a few.  Also agree with you about BelAir.

Joe,
I hear and agree with you but there are other options (sometimes) besides just trees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,


Where I have removed bunkers, I have the same experience, even where I have designed them.  In fact, removing bunkers and not really seeing an effect on the hole sort of opened my eyes to reducing bunker sizes overall.


In general, I think modern architects have made bunkers too big, including me.  At a recent bunker renovation we took the furthest lobe from the green out in many cases and it made no difference. In fact, as a general rule I now measure the width of the green and make sure any green side bunker is less than that width to keep them more in scale and make the green more visually dominant.  There are exceptions, but not many.


I do lament a few removals.  On one course they removed some green backing bunkers, which to my eye made the hole.  The (valid) argument is that on this uphill par 3, no one hit far enough to get in them.  Still....on another hole they removed the long fairway bunker, leaving just the last little oval, arguing that this was the only part of the bunker that really challenged the carry. I believed the first fifty yards challenged the golfers sense of fear, though!


On a different bunker removal/reduction project, I had placed a few big bunkers.  All go reduced in size.  They had noted that the parts furthest from the fairway/green had very little use, so why put them there?  (Actually, it was to sell houses, so now that houses were built, they had ceased to function, although they didn't ask the homeowners what they thought)


I have told the story about removing bunkers early in my career, which I hated, especially those 20-30 yards short of the green, which I think frame many greens quite well.  But, they didn't come into play for good players anymore, so the prevailing thought of the time was to take them out.  This era is similar to the 1930's and 1970's in that regard.


One more story, but about 1980 was doing a two hole remodel for an owner.  On the first, he saw my fairway bunker left and told me to remove it because no one hit it left.  I was feeling pretty good about the next hole, with its fairway bunker on the right, but he said to remove that one, too, because everyone hit there! 


So, again, there is the case for no fairway bunkers......


BTW, agree with Joe. The bunkers most likely to stay serve multiple purposes.  One always has to be that they are in play, but should also look good, divide holes, provide targets or safety, etc., if they want to be assured of staying.

[Mark_Fine]

We have all seen the tree movement to deforest overplanted golf courses.  I believe the next trend is likely debunkering of what I will call over-designed golf courses.  There are few if any architects out there not guilty of this and as Jeff has stated, it is already starting and he for one recognizes it, even with his own designs. 

[Martin Lehmann]

We are carrying out a large scale renovation at my club in The Netherlands (a modest, but elegant members course designed by Fred Hawtree in the 1950s and extended by Belgian architect Paul Rolin in the 1990s). As chairman of the greens committee my policy is to eliminate as many bunkers as possible. The assessment methodology I use is simple: does a bunker have a function or not? Function in the sense of strategy, hole definition, balance, safety and/or aesthetics. If an answer can't be given right away, the bunker disappears. In some cases it's replaced by a grassy hollow or by simply changing the mowing patterns.


Until know the results have been very satisfactory, for members, who in many cases don't notice the difference, and with respect to reducing maintenance costs. I think that this is the true minimalistic approach, where form really follows function.