Fairway bunker positioning

[Thomas Dai]

Sometimes it’s said or written that a fairway bunker, maybe even greenside bunker too, that no one ever goes into is in the wrong place.
But there is also an argument that a key element of course management is to avoid going into hazards including bunkers, sometimes to the extent of playing as close to the hazard/bunker as possible without going into it, which if done well would mean that the bunker in question is largely unused.
So is it a wrongly located bunker, due to its lack of use, or is it good course management that players are avoiding it?
This has probably been discussed here in many times before, although I can’t find a quick link.
Thoughts!
Atb

[Joe Leenheer]

I've never been in the bunker on the 10th at ANGC....mostly because security would take my badge and no one wants that....but I don't think any of the players get in it either.


I believe some terms that will be used in this thread are "aiming bunker" and "deceiving bunker".

[Tom_Doak]

I absolutely detest the notion of "aiming bunkers" and you are not likely to find one on any of my courses [unless it's for the second shot in the distance, or in play on another hole entirely].  I don't know why an architect would want to help a player in that way.  They are the surest sign that someone has messed with a golden age course.


However we do sometimes build bunkers to provide separation between maintained turf and native vegetation, in places where they are not often found by golf balls.  On a sandy site, they don't cost much to build, and if they aren't getting much play they shouldn't require much maintenance, so I don't know why some people object to them so much.




P.S.  Years ago, Tom Weiskopf mentioned to me that he once drove it in that bunker on 10 at Augusta during The Masters.  He promptly went to the press tent and told them he played the hole driver, 6-iron, two putts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


In the current real world of cutting golf course costs, yes, eliminating bunkers that don't see much action is a real thing.  I have been back to my own courses (and several others) to reduce sand bunkering without really affecting course quality.  Obviously, removing sand bunkers that don't seem to affect play is one technique.


Or, parts of sand bunkers.  I went back to my Sand Creek Station a few years back.  On the 8th, I had wrapped a bunker around to flash from the housing, and also just to have the variety of a bigger bunker somewhere.  That part was well off the play line.  With no more need to sell houses, the crew showed me the lack of ball marks, raking, etc. and the back half of it came out.  No big loss for golf.  Another example is bunkers whose outside edges are further from the green than the width of the green itself.  I have been able to trim those outside lobes or areas and actually, IMHO, improve the visuals, because it makes the green the primary visual target, as, again IMHO, it should be.


Similarly, the formerly popular "fore" bunkers are easy enough to take out, even if they complete a visual composition.  And, bunkers behind greens are tougher to lose, because they often complete a composition, test distance accuracy to certain pins, etc., but generally fail to yield significant play.


When I entered the biz in 1977, it was gospel that there were to be no bunkers that were out of play for the best players.  When money was flowing in the next two decades, that sort of relaxed, and probably still is for high end courses.  For the mid and lower level clubs and publics, that line of thought is surely coming back into play, for better or worse.


It is not too hard for me to reduce bunkering from 20-50%, usually in advance of placing expensive bunker liners and white sand, and still see 90% of the function and visuals that were had before.  I guess that says that in the 90's, we got a little to casual with bunker size and placement for a variety of reasons. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Have also mentioned at various times, I am asked to remove bunkers that not only get too little play, but also, those that get "too much play."  No real explanation, but I guess club pros know it when they see it.  Of course, we usually get that recommendation from greens committee chair, who personally sees that bunker too often.


Kind of reminds me of Chicago Golf Club, routed with OB left all the way by well known slicer CB MacDonald.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I trust you would agree, what is simply an “aiming” bunker for some, can be completely in play for others.  These days, especially with so many sets of tees and how far some players hit the golf ball, the term “aiming” bunker might need a new definition. 


I sometimes like to use bunkers to direct play away from places where I would like to see less golf balls end up (like nearby roads/homes).  These bunkers might not get a lot of action but they serve a purpose. 


At the same time I am also a believer that many courses are over bunkered.  Less can be more and sometimes bunkers can be superfluous and simply add extra maintenance headaches/costs.  They serve NO real purpose at all. 


Bunkers that are “eye candy” will always be debated.  Some will argue they help improve aesthetics and course continuity.  Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.  Opinions about them are quite subjective. 


We also have to remember that some  players only view bunkers through their own eyes in how they play the golf course.  What they see as a bunker that is “never” in play for them might be very much in play for others. 


Varying course conditions can also totally change the hazard value of certain bunkers.  If conditions are firm and fast vs soft that bunker 300 yards off the tee that one might have called an “aiming” bunker might now be very much in play.  Wind can play a dramatic role as well. Also bunkers that are placed well short of greens that some players feel only penalize weaker golfers can come very much in play for the better golfer who doesn’t hit an ideal drive from the tee and is now faced with a recovery shot that brings that bunker into play. 


For the most part though, bunkers that see very little action probably don’t need to be there but there are always exceptions.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks guys, interesting thoughts.


A couple of aspects to add to the mix -


1 Braids alledged comment about not building bunkers in the first instance but waiting a year and then installing the bunkers where the divot marks have accumulated.


2 Use of saving bunkers (part mentioned above)


3 Course management - eg J Nicklaus’ comment (about Lytham) about avoiding the fairway bunkers at all costs*, T Woods 72-holes and N Faldo 71 holes at TOC with going in a bunker.


Atb


* a position I very much agree with.

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
Braids wasn’t the only architect to hold off adding bunkers until later on after he saw how the course was played.  Flynn was know for that practice and many others constantly tweaked their courses as well.  It is pretty common to modify one’s design after a year or two even today. 


Nothing wrong with “saving” bunkers.  I have said this here many times before, nothing wrong with most any design feature unless it is over used. 


Pot bunkers on the links courses you mention (particularly fairway bunkers) must be avoided because they almost always result in one lost shot.  A lot of golfers think that is wrong and think if you hit into a fairway bunker you should always have a chance to reach the green.  I love the “recovery” shot as much as anyone but also love and respect the challenge those bunkers offer.  They are often placed in locations where you want to be near and they create interest and temptation which is a key feature of most great hazards. 


I have always loved the word temptation and Architects who think about that word when it comes to their bunkering, usually end up with an interesting and thought provoking design.

[Peter Pallotta]

I use the term 'Golden Age Lite' to describe the half dozen courses I've played by a certain architect. It's a minor grumble: some of the taste, few of the calories. His bunkering is the main reason the term.
P

[JMEvensky]

How many courses' fairway bunkering would be improved by changing the mowing lines? In my part of the world, a fairway bunker actually in the fairway is unusual.

[Mark_Fine]

JM,
The number would be off the charts!  Mowing lines are one of the easiest things to fix and soooo many courses would benefit for this!  They are usually one of the first things we address. Fairway bunkers should be in the fairway  or at least connected directly to it not left languishing out in the rough.  I call those rough bunkers. 
Mark

[jim_lewis]

As others have noted, there may be justified exceptions, but the best fairway bunkers are those that require the player think about his options prior to choosing his club and target line. The bunker should offer an advantage on the next shot if the player can successfully challenge it. Better players will usually attempt to flirt with the bunker and take the risk of landing in it. That is, if they perceive the advantage to outweigh the risk. The average or weaker player will tend to play away from the bunker and rarely wind up in it. Consequently, it is the better, and bolder, player who will sometimes find a well placed bunker that is not often found by the weaker, more cautious, player.
There is another bunker placement that is not often mentioned. I call it a "sucker bunker" that temps the player to challenge it even though there is little advantage in doing so. They are usually found on the inside corner of doglegs. Most players, especially if playing the hole for the first time, tend to assume that they should challenge bunker only to discover that the risk far outweighed little, or no, advantage.

[mike_malone]

 Flynn at Rolling Green believed in few fairway bunkers and wanted them first of all to be visible. You can’t suggest a mode of play if it’s blind.
  You need interesting land to do this.


His seaside courses like Shinnecock and Indian Creek that I have seen are totally different. They are heavily bunkered but still suggest a way to play the hole.




Another interesting thing to me is that the original bunkers were far enough from the green  that ( with one exception ) average golfers couldn’t reach the green even if they weren’t in the bunkers. I find that as a reaffirmation that they aren’t penalizers.




As we discuss the idea of removing some bunkers and moving others to their original spot it is interesting to engage members about their thoughts on the purpose of fairway bunkering.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As others have noted, there may be justified exceptions, but the best fairway bunkers are those that require the player think about his options prior to choosing his club and target line. The bunker should offer an advantage on the next shot if the player can successfully challenge it. Better players will usually attempt to flirt with the bunker and take the risk of landing in it. That is, if they perceive the advantage to outweigh the risk. The average or weaker player will tend to play away from the bunker and rarely wind up in it. Consequently, it is the better, and bolder, player who will sometimes find a well placed bunker that is not often found by the weaker, more cautious, player.
There is another bunker placement that is not often mentioned. I call it a "sucker bunker" that temps the player to challenge it even though there is little advantage in doing so. They are usually found on the inside corner of doglegs. Most players, especially if playing the hole for the first time, tend to assume that they should challenge bunker only to discover that the risk far outweighed little, or no, advantage.

Recent threads on strategy say otherwise.  Koepka knows his spray pattern is 65 yards max, aims 32.5 yards left (adjusted for the wind) of FW or 66 yards left of in play bunkers, to bring it back and avoid the FW bunker (see that Scott Fawcett video) 


Strategy is much more scientific now than it was in the Golden Age (perhaps because clubs allow more precise shots? Or maybe just the passage of time and more knowledge)  Also, just like football coaches, golfers have learned that playing defense wins championships.


My only question is whether it really worked even back then, or if FW bunker avoidance was the rule by great players like Jones, even if the architects publicity books/folders said otherwise?


Just throwing that out there for discussion.

[jim_lewis]

Jeff:


When I used the term "better players", I was referring to regular human beings such as the ones I have played with. I did not mean to include the bombers that play on the professional tours.


If a bunker does not cause the player to give it much thought, why have it at all?


Jim

[Thomas Dai]

What about bunkers installed to test the bomber that also (accidentally/deliberately) end up effecting the short hitters second shot?
It’s also probably worth considering that many bunkers built years/decades/centuries ago were installed prior to bunker raking plus that manicured maintenance aspects have altered the severity of recovery. Are these also aspects that should be considered in relation to the location of current bunkers?

Atb

[Ira Fishman]

I would learn quite a bit if posters gave specific examples of bunkers on specific holes that they think are good or bad.  I thought the fairway bunkers and cross bunkers short of green on Number 2, 13 and 16 at St. George's Hill (Red and Blue Combo) were great but I could see many finding the cross-bunkers irrelevant.


Thanks,


Ira