Pace of play—Size and Depth of Bunkers

[Andrew Carr]

Good points about difficult bunkers not needing to be difficult from an Ingress/Egress standpoint.  Ian Andrew restored a wonderfully huge green side bunker at Wheatley Hills Golf Club (Devereux Emmet on Long Island) on the 9th hole which was/is both difficult and easy to physically get in and out of.  This assumes the golfer enters and exits from the low side of the bunker.


I am concerned with the softening of hazards over the years.  Club golfers have become as pampered as the PGA Tour in expectations of conditions in bunkers which just doesn't make sense to me, so I guess my immediate reaction to bunker difficulty is GOOD!  Make it harder!  IT'S A HAZARD!  But my future old man self will probably not look back on my current comments about Ingress/Egress too kindly.

[Jim Sherma]

From a pace of play standpoint large bunkers with a single easier ingress/egress point can clearly slow up play. A 20-30 yard walk back and forth to your ball followed by a good raking job across the entire length of the bunker is very time consuming. Architecturally, a nest of smaller bunkers could cover the same area while avoiding the long raking needs of a single large bunker. Probably would add to the hand mowing work around them from a maintenance standpoint.

[Jim Hoak]

As Jim Sherma recommends, a nest of smaller bunkers can ease the pace of play issues--and personally, I generally like the look and playability of a nest of bunkers better.  Any disagreement?

[Kalen Braley]

Having recently played Gamble Sands, the bunkers out there are enormous and in my opinion often fairly difficult to get out of because of said size.  It was hands down the most pure acreage of bunkers than any other course I've played..

More to come on the Gamble Sands thread I'm going to resurrect a bit later.

[Sean_A]

As Jim Sherma recommends, a nest of smaller bunkers can ease the pace of play issues--and personally, I generally like the look and playability of a nest of bunkers better.  Any disagreement?

Yes, I disagree. I usually prefer one bunker to three so far as aesthetics go. Bigger, deeper bunkers can slow the game down, but it's clear we can't use them as an excuse for general slow play because so few courses have such bunkers...yet slow play thrives.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I also disagree. Sometimes a single, larger bunker sits better; sometimes a “nest” of two bunkers sits better (usually differing in size and shape); sometimes - but rarely in my experience - three or more might fit best.


Everyone has a different design aesthetic that pleases them. At the same time, every landscape has a solution that fits best.