[Mark Brown]

1.Sand-faced, grass-faced, stacked sod, shaggy edges  shaped by nature

Architects: Which type do you prefer? And in what circumstances do you use each typei? What are the advantages and drawbacks of each type?

2. Clusters of small bunkers, large sand-faced bunkers, cigar bunkers, waste bunkers, penal pot bunkers

Which do you prefer and in what circumstances?

3. When is less more?

4. When is more better?

[Jeff_Brauer]

1.Sand-faced, grass-faced, stacked sod, shaggy edges  shaped by nature

Architects: Which type do you prefer? And in what circumstances do you use each typei? What are the advantages and drawbacks of each type?

2. Clusters of small bunkers, large sand-faced bunkers, cigar bunkers, waste bunkers, penal pot bunkers

Which do you prefer and in what circumstances?

3. When is less more?

4. When is more better?

Mark,

I had that discussion in the office today.  The big question today is the apparent need for some kind of bunker liner on sloped, flashed bunkers.  Without them, your nice white sand washes too easily. With them, you can expect the fabrics to get snagged with power bunker rakes, and the hard surface types to chip away, necessitating rebuilding every five to seven years, based on current experience.

The pragmatic solution to bunkers is flatter, steep banked bunkers.  If flat enough, the need for bunker liner goes away to a degree, they wash less in rains (meaning I flatten bunkers in a rainy climate like Houston, but have at it with flash bunkers in the desert) and many players think they are more "fair" in that a close miss bounces off the steep bank to a flat lie.  In a flash bunker, a ten foot miss may plug in the bank, and a 20 foot miss finds the flat bottom, usually with a better lie......

However, you can't beat the look of a MacKenzie flash bunker.....in my mind they are worth it!

2. On each design, I try to use them all, for variety.  I have an affinity for cigar bunkers - but I call them civil war trenches, after some I turned into bunkers near Atlanta years ago.....

3. I used to use fewer bunkers in wooded areas, figuring the trees did what I needed done. On virtually all of the favorite hole surveys my owners have done after opening, the favorite holes are inevitably the ones with the most attractive bunker patterns.

Less is more when on an uphill hole, where they aren't very visible anyway.

4.On downhill holes, I like the drama of attractive bunkers in most, but not all cases.

[Mark Brown]

Jeff,

How do you like the bunkering at San Francisco GC vs. Winged Foot-West or ,perhaps, Muirfield Village or Augusta National?

And how do different type bunkers figure in the intimidation factor?

[Jeff_Brauer]

SF are my all time faves......I would say MV over ANGC, but thats just my opinon.

I think big bunkers intimidate, as do deep ones.

Sometimes, on a short shot, instead of the typical cape and bay, I will do a solid top edge paralleling the green. I know I have aimed for the grass bay for safety on occaison, and figure that the stark, straight edge may have the same effect on many others.  Perhaps, though, I am the only one.....

[Don_Mahaffey]

In my opinion bunkers are the one feature where architects should strive to match bunker style to the site's environment. Hairy looking bunkers just don't work in the desert where warm-season grasses need to be used and very little native grasses survive. Same with stacked sod bunkers, build them in the wrong environment and they're a disaster. The hairy look works well on a site where they seem natural due to existing natural grasses, soil texture and turf selection. The sharp edged look works well with bermuda turf. Great bunker work happens when the bunker style works with the constraints/strengths of the site. One of the reasons I don't like certain architects work is they build the same bunkers on every course they design, ignoring the unique opportunities that every site presents.  

[TEPaul]

Don:

When it comes to bunkers styles and where to do them and with what I think you pretty much said it all in post #4. Great post!

Jeff:

When it comes to the use of underliner in bunkering today---new construction or with old bunker restoration--to me the trick---nay the necessity is to ONLY use that underliner up on the sand faces where balls are unlikely to come to rest and also mechanized bunker rakers really can't go.

To do that is a bit more work in construction because the contractor or architect sort of needs to make additional cuts higher up on the faces to key or staple the underliner into but in the end it's well worth the extra work. But frankly, in the end the additional work of making those extra cuts to key the partial underliner into will be saved by less underliner in bunkers and the work of laying it totally throughout the floors of bunkers---that underliner ain't all that cheap anyway!!

The point is to never lay that underliner throughout the sand surface and particularly under where balls will come to rest (and mechanized rakes go).

I think a lot of architects and contractors just get lazy about this as it's just so easy to staple that underliner into the single mid-bunker drainage cut!

Also a lot of architects, contractors and supers want to tell you that they have to lay that underliner throughout bunkers to prevent rocks and pebbles and such from coming up. To me that's absolute bullshit and totally unnecessary.

They say if they don't do that the pebbles and rocks and such will screw up the sand-pros and/or create discoloration over time and be a nuisance to golfers.

I say if that's really a problem (which I doubt it really is) then just get rid of the sand-pros, let the discoloration happen and forget about pebbles and such in bunkers bothering golfers---we have a new adoptable local rule in golf now that things like that are removable by the golfer anyway!!

[Jason McNamara]

Mark,

I had that discussion in the office today.  The big question today is the apparent need for some kind of bunker liner on sloped, flashed bunkers.  Without them, your nice white sand washes too easily. With them, you can expect the fabrics to get snagged with power bunker rakes, and the hard surface types to chip away, necessitating rebuilding every five to seven years, based on current experience.

The pragmatic solution to bunkers is flatter, steep banked bunkers.  If flat enough, the need for bunker liner goes away to a degree, they wash less in rains (meaning I flatten bunkers in a rainy climate like Houston, but have at it with flash bunkers in the desert) and many players think they are more "fair" in that a close miss bounces off the steep bank to a flat lie.  In a flash bunker, a ten foot miss may plug in the bank, and a 20 foot miss finds the flat bottom, usually with a better lie......

However, you can't beat the look of a MacKenzie flash bunker.....in my mind they are worth it!

Since I happen to be in Houston, I'll add to this.  We have numerous elevated greens, and we installed the netting (in the faces, not the bottoms) you mention about two years ago.  It's pretty universally reviled by the membership.  And we can still have the sand in the bunker faces washed into the bottom if a storm is a frog-strangler (technical term).

My understanding is that Winged Foot did have the netting for a time, then took it out.  (Others here probably know more than I about this, and can elaborate.)

Jason

ps.  Besides the fact that a club can catch in the netting (with usually disastrous results), I don't like the fact that the webbing seems to reduce the likelihood of a plugged lie.  I'm of the school that says if you have a wedge in your hand and you just miss a green when chasing a tight flag, you probably deserve to have it plug.

[Mark Brown]

Don,

Good summary about bunkering. Thanks.

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()