[Mike_Young]

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?  

[Steve Mann]

mike-
interesting point.  i don't think you will ever see this trend but never say never.  i will agree with you about the difficulty aspect of it.  i think it is much easier to play from greenside bunkers than it would be to play from grassy bunkers or steep closely mown chipping areas.  evidence is when the U.S. Open was at pinehurst.  the closely mown chipping areas that fall away from the green really created difficulties for the players.  

[rgkeller]

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."

[Mark_Guiniven]

It is an important thing in golf to make holes look much more difficult than they really are. People get more pleasure in doing a hole which looks almost impossible and yet is not so difficult as it appears. In this connection it may be pointed out that rough grass is of little interest as a hazard. It is frequently much more difficult than a fearsome looking bunker or belt of whin bushes or rushes, but it causes considerable annoyance in lost balls, and no one ever gets the same thrill in driving over a stretch of rough as over a spectacular bunker, although in reality a bunker many not be so severe. — Alister Mackenzie

There's your answer Mike.

Can anyone name a famous course without fairway bunkers?

[Doug Siebert]

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.

[T_MacWood]

Definitely, but it has to be the right property. One with natural advantages...interesting topograpy and broken ground taking the place of bunkers.

[Tyler Kearns]

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_Young]

Mark,
IMO MacKenzie was not a big user of fwy bunkers.  How many at Pasa etc.

I agree with the points many of you are making but I still wonder if a bunkerless course would be accepted?  Or would it be too difficult?

[TEPaul]

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?

[jeffwarne]

Bunkers do bring a certain degree of artificiality to most sites
Certainly clusters of them on every hole in bluegrass/green surroundings

How about SIGNIFICANTLY less bunkers on a course-,but stategically placed and occasionally penal as hell
-perhaps one or two even marked as lateral hazards(to expedite play)( particularly on a site with no natural water features )where they're not regularly maintained,UNRAKED, rugged, and natural(i.e. you could lose the ball)The kind of bunkers that have names you remember

#5 at Cuscowilla comes to mind-even though you could/would get a good lie in the middle of that bunker,you don't want to risk it
That was the first hole I can remember recently where I gave a bunker some thought as far as playing the hole(and then hit it in it!)

throw in (JUST a FEW) less penal,raked ones,for eye candy and variety

[TEPaul]

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!  

[TEPaul]

Mike Young said;

"I agree with the points many of you are making but I still wonder if a bunkerless course would be accepted?  Or would it be too difficult?"

Mike:

I think it would be very controversial at first but I feel it would inevitably be accepted if the course really did do a job strategically with what was used as the alternative to sand bunkering. It's almost unimaginable to me that solid ground (hollows, mounds, broken ground etc combined with grasses) that exacted some sort of commensurate (or more) toll in a strategic sense would not be eventually accepted by golfers.

One of the very most important factors of whatever replaced sand bunkering as an architectural alternative would have to do a really good job in the use of the vertical (or height dimension) which is so essential to golf and golf strategy. The latter point is what Behr spoke about so eloquently in a fundamental sense.

[Ted Kramer]

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_Gracely]

Just off the top of my head, I think you could come up with a bunkerless course using similarities to existing great bunkerless holes (#14 at Dornoch, #14 at ANGC, #11 at Ballybunion) and removing the bunkers off other well-known types of holes (Biarritz Par3, #7 at Pine Valley, etc.).  The key would be to build fairways that look like #18 at Bandon Trails (lots of undulation) and greens that look like a combination of Ross, C&C, MacKenzie and CBM.

Wonder if there are any deep-pocketed wanna-be owners out there will to take a chance on this concept?  What's the worse thing that happens?....you add some bunkers in after the fact if people just don't take to the idea.

[Tyler Kearns]

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

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Although I'm a huge advocate of an architect experimenting with a sandless course (no sand bunkering at all) I do think it should be in the realm of new construction and not the ripping out and grassing over of sand bunkering on existing courses. And in that vein, BRIAN, KEEP YOUR COTTON-PICKING HANDS OR EVEN THE THOUGHT OF THEM OFF PVGC's #7 ULTRA FAMOUS HHA!!!

[Tom Renli]

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.

[shanew]

back in the mid-90's we designed a course without bunkers on a 36 hole development southern arizona.  the site had small ribbons of washes flowing through it and lent itself to not "needing" any bunkers, just as tom m. mentioned above.  

the whole project fell through so it was never completed. but it was a fun exercise in creative grading...

[Mark_Rowlinson]

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.

[Pete Lavallee]

Great call on Royal Ashdown Forest Mark. Just check out the course review on this site to get an idea how broken ground covered in heather can provide hazards which the golfer finds exhilarating to carry or negociate. The key is their 3 dimensional effect and the interesting color contrast that the heather provides.  

The same is true with the quarry pits left at Painswick, although they aren't filled with sand or long grass, the unique 3 dimensional nature provides the interest and excitement. This is probably what Mac Kenzie was referring to, driving over long grass just doesn't provide the thrill that makes golf such a compelling game.

[CHC1948]

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  

[Lou_Duran]

I had summer memberships at Hillcrest Golf Club in Findlay, Ohio in the 1970s, and despite one solitary bunker on the whole course, it was very well supported by the locals.  The course was not that unusual in that part of the country, in that the only the private courses had any serious bunkering.

No, I don't believe that a bunkerless top-tier golf course is possible today.  Just like 18 holes are standard, bunkers have become an intergral part of the course.  Of the best courses, are there any with poor, unexciting bunkering?  It seems that artful, well placed bunkers are the features most often noted on some of our top courses.  They add definition, color, and detail to a sometimes otherwise unexciting canvass.

Well done bunkering sets the tone and strategy for the course.  I suppose that this could be done with mounds and grassy hollows, but why would a designer place such limitation on himself?  Personally, I like a combination of the two.   On a site where sand is not practical (eg. where it is very windy and/or hard/$$$ to get and maintain), there can be fewer in number and smaller in scale.  Holding everything else equal, I would go to the course with bunkers.  But I like sand.  

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

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!!

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Huntercombe - Willie Park.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()