Judging a course by removing the bunkers

[Tommy Williamsen]

What if they rooved every bunker at your course? How much interest would it lose? I was thinking about a few of my favorite courses and thought if they removed all the sand, some of them would still be excellent courses with lots of interest and shot values. Would this be a legitimate way to judge a courses efficacy? I am not advocating courses to remove the bunkers but wondering how much interest courses would have without them.
Some courses like Pine Valley might be outliers because sand defines the course.
One course I considered was Hidden Creek. Each hole has enough interest that the course would still offer a good test.

[Thomas Dai]

An argument could be made for removing bunkers that are surrounded by rough.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
We just took a course from 40 bunkers down to 30 and it has much more interest (not less). 


As you know, it all depends where those bunkers are, how they are shaped/oriented,... and also what you leave behind after you take them out. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good players typically look at the contours in the fairway and on the green when fashioning shots, and sort of block bunkers out of their minds.  I suspect that any green with interesting green surrounds and interior contours that affect approach and recovery shots would have similar interest sans bunkers.


Like Mark, we are in the big time bunker reduction mode, and even in new designs, I don't notice when playing one of my newer, less bunkered courses, and I like them mostly for the aesthetics, like most golfers.  I think the ideal way to go is use as few bunkers as possible, and only/mostly where they are needed for artistic composition, while still being in play in some interesting way.

[Mark_Fine]

Some still struggle with bunkerless holes even though there are times when they are not necessary or helpful.  We have another project under construction now and on the one hole our plan called for no bunkers but I was asked to compromise and incorporate two.  We are making it work but here is a case where the architect doesn’t always get their way.  Note: It is not a restoration. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


Mostly, if you removed bunkers you would quickly find out whether the property was interesting for golf or not.


You would also find that there are quite a few famous courses that are overrated because of their bunkers.


It's probably a better test to talk about removing all of the FAIRWAY BUNKERS and see where that gets you.  If you've got well guarded and well contoured greens, you don't need much else, but many courses insist on all sorts of driving hazards.  That said, a hole like the 16th at The Old Course would go from great to only fair if you removed the Principal's Nose, and that's why having NO bunkers is probably not a great idea.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I really wanted to (renovate) an existing course in Hilton Head to make it bunker less.  It would have been awesome but Rees Jones got the job     I don't think he will have zero formal bunkers on the renovation.  The course is still sitting there and no work has started so maybe there is still hope. 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's a good and interesting question. Since the experts have already weighed in, let me say that it's also a useful thought experiment: I've been imagining the two courses I know best, sans bunkers. It's clearer than ever: neither course is built on a good site for golf, and -- save for one or two holes -- neither is made a better or more engaging course for all their bunkering. Which brings to mind one speculative conclusion: that both courses would be more fun if all the existing bunkers were removed and replaced by 8-12 truly random bunkers -- and I do mean random, as in the 'give a 5 year old 20 lollipops and tell him to drop 1 lollipop per hole anywhere he wants on any 8-12 holes he chooses, and to keep the others for himself -- and then build a 4 foot deep pot bunker wherever there's a lollipop' kind of random. My two courses would immediately get better, and dramatically so -- though no one could predict how, beforehand, or convincingly explain or defend/rationalize why afterwards. And because of that I can say with almost absolute certainty: there's not one architect alive today who would ever try it -- not one who'd be willing to give up his control (of the finished product) and pride of ownership (in the original design) to such an extent. Understandably so: modern big money golf course development demands 'architectural predictability' at the outset and 'unassailable rationales' post facto. It's the reason we have so many/too many bunkers in the first place!

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's a good and interesting question. Since the experts have already weighed in, let me say that it's also a useful thought experiment: I've been imagining the two courses I know best, sans bunkers. It's clearer than ever: neither course is built on a good site for golf, and -- save for one or two holes -- neither is made a better or more engaging course for all their bunkering. Which brings to mind one speculative conclusion: that both courses would be more fun if all the existing bunkers were removed and replaced by 8-12 truly random bunkers -- and I do mean random, as in the 'give a 5 year old 20 lollipops and tell him to drop 1 lollipop per hole anywhere he wants on any 8-12 holes he chooses, and to keep the others for himself -- and then build a 4 foot deep pot bunker wherever there's a lollipop' kind of random. My two courses would immediately get better, and dramatically so -- though no one could predict how, beforehand, or convincingly explain or defend/rationalize why afterwards. And because of that I can say with almost absolute certainty: there's not one architect alive today who would ever try it -- not one who'd be willing to give up his control (of the finished product) and pride of ownership (in the original design) to such an extent. Understandably so: modern big money golf course development demands 'architectural predictability' at the outset and 'unassailable rationales' post facto. It's the reason we have so many/too many bunkers in the first place!

The “Chaos School of Thought” as my friend christened it.


I tried it once on a routing I did - put a blindfold on and gave myself 40 bunkers. If I missed a fairway, I allowed myself to go again....


A different way (if you had a wide open site) is to place the 40 bunkers and then do the routing - Kind of an extension to the idea of shaping an entire, flat site before doing the routing.

[Sean_A]

I have been a long time advocate for massive bunker reduction, more meaningful placement and better balanced with other features. Still, I rarely take the idea to the ultimate of no bunkers and don't believe courses are better without sand. To me the idea is to give the appearance of randomly placed bunkers, but in fact they are not.

Some of the most abusive uses of sand can be found on sandy soil terrain with at least good land movement. Probably the least interesting Open site is Muirfield. Without bunkers it would be quickly exposed as such. That said, I think 150 bunkers is mega overkill if a variety is important in design. On the other hand, Lytham has more bunkers than any Open site. If a ton of its bunkers were removed I think there is pretty interesting land to be exposed.

Much about feature placement should be about balance and variety, but the land dictates this a large degree and no rule about more sand in fairways or near greens holds up.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Soil type, hollows adjacent to playing lines and areas of accumulated divot marks etc?
Atb

[PCCraig]

With the greens and fairway contours, the bunkering takes a distant backseat at White Bear.

[Tommy Williamsen]

With the greens and fairway contours, the bunkering takes a distant backseat at White Bear.

Pat, White Bear was one of the courses I thought about. While the bunkers do add to the wonders of the course, the terrain and movement in and around the greens is so good that the course would still stand out without them.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

You would also find that there are quite a few famous courses that are overrated because of their bunkers.

Well Mr. Doak, it's time to NAME NAMES!

[Mike_Young]

You would also find that there are quite a few famous courses that are overrated because of their bunkers.

Well Mr. Doak, it's time to NAME NAMES!

The point comes across without naming names...AND I would add that quite a few architects are overated because of their bunkers...AND IMHO so many bunkers to more to provide contrast than they do strategy...if the sand were removed and grass replaced it then in many cases it would be more difficult but provide no contrast except for shadows..

[Mike_Trenham]

This exercise reminds me of Ian Andrew’s process to get members buy in on tree removal.  He give everyone on the committee the right to protect about 25 trees the rest are open for potential elimination.  It’s a good intellectual exercises for thinking about your favorite/home course.


Interestingly the fairway bunkers that seem most important are the cross bunkers.