Bunkering behind greens

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Raynor also like the idea if Shoracres is anything to go by, I was surprised how many there were....loved the idea and they fit perfectly into the green complexes and natural land forms

[BCrosby]

Starting with J H Taylor and Hilton through B. Darwin (who did a piece on the topic circa 1909), a lot was written pro and con about bunkers behind greens in the first decade or so the 20th century. I'll try to post some of it. The topic seems to have since fallen off the radar screen. (Excepting at our beloved GolfClubAtlas, of course! )

The usual breakdown about 1910 was that defenders of older Victorian course designs (read, Taylor, Hilton, Purves, Garden Smith and most of the pros) didn't like b/b's because they discouraged aggressive approaches and favored more "pawky" shots. They seemed to draw a pretty hard line on the subject. For example, the "pawky approach" argument was why most of them didn't like the Eden Hole or the Road Hole. Both have hazards hard behind their greens.

Most of the new school 'strategic' architects didn't seem to think they were a big issue one way or another, as far as I can tell. I've haven't dug into it very deeply, but my sense is that they had no insuperable objections.  If b/b's made sense in terms of the strategy of the hole, have at it. So as you'd expect, you get a mixed bag with the classic Golden Agers.

Personally, I like b/b's for the reasons given in my post above. They tend to be a hazard that affects mostly better players being too aggressive. Which is the kind of player that should be the primary target for the punishments doled out by an architectural feature.   

Bob

[Kris Spence]

The rain has me in the office for a few days, I was cleaning up a bit and came across the Seminole Ross plan.  It reminded me of this thread and some of the comments.  I try not to use the words always or never when referring to Ross' work, my experience has been he varied from course to course and according to site conditions and client request.  I learn something new about him each and every course I get to work on.   Anyway, here are the numbers on Seminole, directly from the plan.


Total Bunkers 137 with 9 behind the greens ( I may have missed a couple but should be a pretty close count)


Barton Hills plan had 9 behind


Palm Sola 5


Sara Bay 4




For the most part, of the 15 Ross courses I have worked on and the 2 I am currently working on, the count ranges from none to as many as 4 I think.


This brings me back to an issue at Carolina Golf Club in Charlotte when doing the course there, a statement about Ross "never" placing bunkers behind greens was made during a presentation by a self proclaimed Ross expert, I cringed a bit when he said it but let it go.  Sure enough, a battle ensued soon thereafter because I was placing a bunker behind the 10th green.  Funny thing was, the original Ross bunker(s) were still there from the original construction in 29 and were also drawn on his plan for the course.  We ended up condensing it into 1 bunker and placing it directly behind a small center back plateau where the land sloped away and quickly off course property (now part of course). 


Some of the back bunkering by Ross is behind a diagonal green whereas the bunker is behind only from the shallow approach side.  This is true of several of the Seminole bunkers and others I have seen.   Most of the back bunkers I see  were for containment when the back side of the green came to a property line, roadway  and at times to protect the next teeing ground. 


My guess is of the 270 some odd Ross holes I have worked with, less than 10% had a bunker behind the green.  I would not consider that a high percentage but enough to exclude the use of the words always or never.  Maybe occasionally is better.


Moral of the story is, Ross was pretty flexible and abt to employ a variety of bunker strategies and styles depending on site conditions or client request.

[Mark_Fine]

Kris,
Maybe Brad Klein will chime in     The main point is that Ross sure didn't do many of them (relatively speaking in his 400 or so courses) especially compared to other architects of his time.  Furthermore, if one does their research and finds the old plans and finds old aerials and photos, then there is not a need to speculate whether he did or didn't use them on a particular course.  You will have your answer. 


Ross also built very few ponds (but of course there are exceptions there as well). 
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

Back bunkers made more sense when the ball rolled farther and the run-up shot was more in vogue.

[KMcKeown]

Is there a continuation of this topic for the best bunkers behind greens? I agree, on firm fast courses its a terrific design feature and in most cases not a good spot to find yourself. I recall #12 at Prairie Dunes and #17 at The National being two of my favorite bunkers located behind greens. I thought Chicago GC had a couple but I can't recall the hole numbers off hand.


Where are some other superbly placed bunkers behind greens?

[Sean_A]

Rear bunkers always potentially make sense because variety is the best receipe for course design.  But in most cases bunkers should be used sparingly so there should be very few good opportunities for rear bunkering.  On some courses that may only be for framing purposes ala Dr Mac.  At other courses a front to back green which has plenty of scope for rear hole locations is a good opportunity.  Sometimes, a saving bunker is placed to the rear because of severe terrain.  The list goes on and a smart archie will figure it out.  To me, its a real shame if an archie doesn't create a few excellent opportunities for rear bunkering.   

Ciao