IMHO bunkers have become a haven in many circumstances from surrounding rough or edges.  I also believe much more difficulty would be acheived with  grassy hollows and grass bunkers in the proper places as well a short mowed chipping areas that allow a ball to run much further than a bunker would allow.  The only missing ingredient is sand which for all practical purposes is used today for contrast more than shot difficulty.  If one were to choose any today's "favorite" courses and replaced the bunkers with grass, would it garner the same recogniition?  

On 99% of the world's golf courses, sand bunkers are the ultimate artificial construct.

If there is no sand on the premises before the course is constructed, then a sand bunker is artificiality defined.

The use of bunkers is much overdone in modern architecture, especially by so called "minimalists."

I play a course fairly regularly that has only two bunkers.  One back right on a downhill par 3 which is pretty much out of play, the other in the corner of the dogleg of the short par 5 that follows it.  It doesn't suffer at all.  It is interesting that there are some deep grassy hollows in a few places that may have been intended for bunkers at one point, but were left as grass.  Honestly, I think they ought to just fill in the remaining two, the one on the par 3 wouldn't be noticed, and the one on the par 5 is a bit over 200 to the flag so a deep hollow filled with thick rough would be just as unlikely to be a "go" for anyone but Tiger anyway.

Until this course opened and I starting playing it, I would have never thought a course without bunkers could work so well.  While I'm quick to agree that bunkers are a haven from the surrounding features on many courses (I aim for the damn things on tee shots on par 4s or second shots on par 5s when I figure I can't actually get on/hold the green since I figure it is an easier play for me) I figured they were necessary to create strategy for the average player.

What it really does is open up the true strategy for these golfers.  Without the artificial constraint of being told where they should and shouldn't play due to their fear of bunkers, they have to really consider the strategy inherent in the terrain and the green.  I've played with some people out there before who never mention anything strategic and they'll tell me stuff like "I always try to drive to the right side of the fairway on #6, the green runs away from me if I'm hitting from the left".  Really amazing how avoiding bunkers, having little water in play and little OB in play opens people's eyes.  This isn't a really tough course (70.7/127 from the tips, but it has 6 par 3s and 6 par 5s so it stands to reason the course rating runs lower than usual) and the lack of obvious trouble gets people wondering why they aren't killing it and after playing it a few times even architecturally clueless people you thought were lost causes appear to begin to notice the cause and effect of where they should and should not play.  They actually see the strategy!

I think bunkers that exist without any particular reason (which is 99% of them in the US, IMHO) may serve to cover up any underlying architecture.  It is the golf architecture equivalent of posting something on GCA in BOLD RED CAPS [/RED].  The eyes of most players are immediately drawn to them, and everything else is drowned out.  How many times do you have someone pointing out or mentioning a useless and easy to escape bunker, and missing the true strategic features of a hole?  Of course, such bunkers do serve a purpose, a course without any decent architecture can use lots of useless bunkers to hide the fact that beyond them, there is no other strategy, so I guess they have their purpose for poor designs.

I played there last week (and hope to get in one more time tomorrow if the rain looks to hold off) and took some pictures, because I think it is a pretty interesting course and probably not what someone might expect would be done with Iowa farmland.  Plays more like a links than anything else in Iowa or the surrounding area at least until somewhere in Nebraska.  So hopefully sometime soon I'll get them out of my camera, see if they turned out halfway decent, and post them here for all to see and critique.  If I play tomorrow I might bring the camera again to add a few more and increase the chances I have a few pictures they don't suck and serve the capture the wacky elevation changes going on.

Tom,

Spot on!

Mike,

There really is a great sense of accomplishment in carrying a devilish looking bunker, or extricating oneself from such a hazard. And although carrying the drive to the crest of a hill, or over a deep swale may be an equalling important shot on a bunkerless course, it does not derive the same thrill.

TK

Mike:

I'm fascinated by the subject and idea of trying architecture without sand bunkering and coincidently said this about it just yesterday on the "Original or Deriviative" thread:

     "I'd love to see a really good architect attempt to do a course that is without sand sometime, but Coore and Crenshaw I very much doubt would be one of them who'd do that.
     I admire great looking sand bunkering as much as the next guy but the fact is sand bunkering is not completely necessary to golf or golf architecture on every site in the world although almost everyone at this point thinks it is simply because it's become so commonly used since almost the beginning as to be assumed to be a necessary standard of golf and architecture.
      In my opinion, the architect who could pull off great golf and great architecture by going without sand bunkering would really win the prize for successful originality in my book! Obviously, I feel this should only be attempted on an otherwise great site that doesn't have any natural sand within hundreds of miles of it."


But I wouldn't recommend it for any course already constructed with bunkering only for new construction. I feel going without sand on some new construction on sites that could handle strategies and such in other ways and have zero natural sand anywhere near the site just might be a truly interesting and original direction for SOME architecture in the future. I am mindful though that sand bunkering is considered to be almost essential to golf and architecture by so many people. But is that really so or just a percepetion that's extant because sand bunkering for a few odd reasons is the architectural vestige that hung on from the original linksland and never let go?

rgkeller:

You're so right in post #2. We all should understand, though, that sand bunkering has definitely become, and obviously for the last 150 years or so the golf architect's best expression to both create strategies on golf courses as well as express himself artistically in the creation of golf courses.

But are sand bunkers essential? Definitely not, in my opinion. Are they perceived to be essential by others? They certainly seem to be. Just the other day Bill Coore mentioned that he believes sand bunkering is one of the three most important ingredients in golf course architecture. Max Behr did an article on sand and architecture about 75 years ago that goes right to the heart of this subject. Did he believe they were essential? Not really. His point was pretty much that in a striving for the all important ingredient of "naturalism" in golf and architecture the use of sand is just inherently unnatural and consequently artifical on so many raw sites in this world.

If one wants to see just how central sand and sand bunkering has become to golf (and architecture) one should carefully read how completely entrenched they have beome within the Rules of Golf and that's been true for well over 125 years.

It certainly would be interesting to see if some architect could successfully shake the perception of the necessity of sand bunkers and do a course without sand. It would put some additional pressure on him for sure to pull it off, not the least of which being he would be totally bucking a locked in perception amongst so many. But I hope one tries to do it. One interesting benefit is it surely could save some money, both in construction and in ongoing maintenance costs!  If you can't get to golfers philosophically maybe they'd listen if you appealed to their wallets!  

I think that a course without sand could definitely work and be accepted. The lack of sand in landing areas and around greens could make depth perception tricky, which would be both interesting and valueable in terms of adding character.

With some subtle contouring I can imagine some great and challenging designs void of sand.

-Ted

Brian,

I do not think removing the bunkers on #7 at Pine Valley would be accepted, because it ruins the interest and strategy of the hole. Without the Hell's Half Acre hazard, the pressure to hit a good drive would be greatly lessened, and the second shot would lack the thrill of carrying a great expanse of gnarly grass & unkempt sand.

TK

Not sure it qualifies as a famous course, however, Desert Forrest is by far the best desert course that I have played, does not have fairway traps.  Very tight fairways, that require the correct shape make it demanding from a ball striking perspective.

Royal Ashdown Forest, Piltdown, Berkhamsted and, of course, Painswick demonstrate that in the right situation there is no need for sand bunkers.  Perhaps I won't call them great courses (and I've no personal experience of Piltdown) but they are inspirational places to play and call for great improvisational skills.

Grandfather's 15th is a great example of a bunkerless hole.  It's no more than 370 yards, it uses shape, several natural creeks and a difficult green to defends itself.  I wouldn't take away all the bunkers at Grandfather because the white sand adds such a great contrast to the lush green grass, however many of the bunkers are used to frame holes in particular the greens, which are not necessary.  Very good thread....I wish we had more like this one!

CHC  

There is a golf course in England called Huntercombe, which I am sure Mark is familiar with, unless I am very much mistaken it is bunkerless.
All the areas where bunkers would be are grass filled and provide  a fair but ample challenge.
I believe the course was a Colt design that I am sure had sand originally, but the lack of sand does nothing to harm what is a pleasant golf course to play.

I would relish Mr Doaks thoughts on this topic, because I can envision him being the one designer out there, that would be able to produce a great golf course without the aid of sand.

Of course on reading this he may say that I am full of it and clearly do not understand his philosophies...however I mean it as a complimient..if anyone could pull it off he could!!

Thank you Mark, I knew that I could depend on you..Willie Park I knew that ..honest I did