[Rick Shefchik]

I just took a virtual/CAD tour of the new John Fought-Tom Lehman course near Rochester, Minn., called Somerby. Here's the link, if you're interested:

http://www.somerby.com/flyover/index.htm

If you take the course tour, note the number of bunkers that will be situated between 40 and 80 yards of the greens. On a very short par 4 or a par 5 that makes sense, but I don't get it on medium to long par 4s -- and there's even a par 3 here with a bunker like that.

To me, a bunker should warn you not to go there -- but who wants to land a shot 50 yards from the green on a par 4? It seems to me they're needlessly punishing the bad player with bunkers in these locations.

Or has modern golf course architecture totally succombed to the idea that the next generation will routinely be hitting drives 350 yards?

[SPDB]

Rick - Bunkers like the one you describe can have a very useful and strategic purpose that might not be revealed from a flyby/overhead view. If utilized properly the bunkers can wreak havoc by creating the illusion that the green is nearer to the player. Ross implemented these types of bunkers on a number of his courses.

But generally, I'm with you - I hate extraneous bunkers, aka "eye candy"

[Dan Kelly]

SPDB -- And for how many plays does that purpose work? How many times can a bunker fake you out?

Seems like an architectural ploy to let members take a few bucks from their guests.

[Rick Shefchik]

Sean -- You're right. Until I see the course from the ground, I won't know if there's an illusion being created. The Ross course I'm most familiar with, Northland CC in Duluth -- has such bunkers on holes 1, 7 and 9, but oddly enough, none of them create the illusion of being closer to the green. They are simply positioned to catch a truly poor second (or third) shot.

Then again, the bunker 50 yards short of the green on #1 at Northland is now gathering the ocassional downwind drive. That was unthinkable when I was playing there regularly in the '60s.

[Gary_Nelson]

Rick,

Using Somerby as an example... Is the purpose of these bunkers simply eye candy?   Considering the cost of construction and maintenance, why aren't courses scaling back on multiple bunkers and putting in fewer (but better) bunkers?  It seems wasteful to put in bunkers that will see little use.

Gary

[JLahrman]

In some cases they can be used directionally if you have any sort of blind shot to the green.  The illusion aspect is not to be overlooked.  The 12th at Camargo has a couple of cross bunkers about 80 yards short of the green that really throw off your distance perception.  No matter how many times I played the hole, I still never felt comfortable with the visual.

As far as eye candy, check out Purgatory near Indianapolis.  Too much of it in my opinion.  There is no reason to have a bunker 10 yards behind the green of a 480 yard upwind par four with an uphill second shot...

[Rick Shefchik]

Gary -- I totally agree with you about the expense, if these bunkers are merely eye candy. I suspect they are, but I guess I'll have to play the course first to pass final judgement. Take the virtual tour and see what you think.

[Chris_Clouser]

JAL

Yes the bunkers at Purgatory are overboard.  They could probably eliminate about a third of them and achieve the same goal.

Which hole in particular are you talking about?

Chris

[Carlyle Rood]

If utilized properly the bunkers can wreak havoc by creating the illusion that the green is nearer to the player.

For example, the 1st at Pasatiempo:


Bunker seems pretty close to the green, correct?


Not exactly.

[Tyler Kearns]

Rick,

Whenever I have played a course where the vast number of bunkers seem like 'eye-candy', I've noticed (when playing poorly) that they tend to pose serious dilemnas after drives are sprayed, and reaching greens in regulation is not an option. Suddenly, the rather dull and mundane lay-up shot is a little more interesting, and much more penal to the careless who are now faced with a half-wedge from a bunker. Just a thought.

Tyler Kearns

[Jeff_McDowell]

Rick,

It's been along time since I've played Northland, but could it be that the bunker 50 yards short of the first hole saves you from going down the hill and into some trees? (Of course I wouldn't know about those trees from personal experience. I can only assume that someone less accurate than me might get into trouble on the right side.)

At Windsong (another Fought\Lehman design) there was a bunker on a par five that looked to be greenside. I layed up short of the bunker, because I didn't want to challenge it. The bunker turned out to be 40 yards short. It was a nice deceiving bunker.

[Dan Kelly]

At Windsong (another Fought\Lehman design) there was a bunker on a par five that looked to be greenside. I layed up short of the bunker, because I didn't want to challenge it. The bunker turned out to be 40 yards short. It was a nice deceiving bunker.

Yes, it was -- but I repeat: How many times will it deceive you?

Perhaps that doesn't matter to anyone else, but for me: I'd rather see architects put their energies into creating features that will challenge continually, rather than deceive once.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Dan,

Your point is well taken. I now know that a long iron should easily carry the bunker, and that playing short of the bunker is probably more risky than going for the green.

[Rick Shefchik]

Jeff -- Number one at Northland does slope from left to right, towards that fairway bunker, but if it weren't there, most shots would end up in high grass rather than reach the few trees farther to the right. Of course, there's no telling how that area was maintained when Ross designed the course in 1927 -- or whether the trees were there, for that matter.

[JLahrman]

Chris,

I believe it's the 14th that particulary caught my attention, although that certainly isn't necessarily the only perpetrator.  I actually liked the course, for having such a gimmicky name and theme ("Longest non-mountain course in the world!") I thought it was pretty solid architecturally.

[RJ_Daley]

How about 2 reasons for such bunker placement

1.  the whole depth perception thing described above...

2.  a source for push up and shaping material for the greens and surrounds?

In Ross's time, or now for that matter, isn't it cheaper to get a couple 100-1000 cubes of dirt for feature shaping nearby (like 50-80 yards from the green site) than truck it in from miles away?  

I agree with someone above who notes that even though after you play the hole once and know there is room behind the deception, it still somehow is in your mind to the extent that it can distract.  (But then I have always been attracted to shiny objects...  )

[SPDB]

Dan - I think you're missing the point.  I am sure you have played a green that breaks a different way than it might appear to a well trained eye. In time you may no longer be fooled by it. Should that green be recontoured because it has failed to fool you repeatedly?

Golfers don't learn instantly from their errors. Past experience may tell you that the green is not directly behind one of these bunkers, but the visual presentation or disorientation will nevertheless influence the way you think about and execute the shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()