I went for a jog around a closed course Christmas day. One hole design stuck with me and upon my return I asked my brothers/Dad their thoughts on it. The Morrissett family is now deeply - and bitterly   - divided on the issue and so we turn to this DG for clarity (or to Tom Paul for claret ).

The generalities of the hole are: par four, 430 yards, the playing corridor itself is through trees and is mostly straight with out of bounds down the left. The green is set at a ~ 30 degree angle to the fairway and runs from front left to back right. The green complex is a modified reverse redan with the usual bunkering. In short, the closer one drives toward the OB, the better the angle into the green.

So far, so good.

Now the plot thickens. Protruding in from the right edge of the rough is a bunker that cuts the width of the fairway in half at approximately the 250y mark from the back tee. It fits the terrain well as the architect built it into the upsweep at the crest of the hill. The tiger can try and carry it but on a direct line, he still wouldn't have the best angle into the green. Conversely, if he can carry it slightly uphill 260y, then he probably has a short iron into the green anyway and may not care much about playing angles.

As the bunker is cut into the hill, its lip is 4 feet or so and many a golfer has to wedge out and most golfers relinquish the idea of reaching the green in two if they get in it. To the credit of the architect, the bunker is a hazard and should be avoided. A great drive for a mere mortal playing from the right set of tees is to be to its left, leaving a mid to long iron into the green.

My question is: would the hole be better without this (seemingly vital) bunker?

Visually the hole would look plainer and there would be one less hazard to avoid, neither of which sounds like a promising developement.

From a playing perspective, without the bunker, many golfers would hit right into that general area (away from the OB left) and be left with a miserable angle into the angled green. Though the chance of hitting this left to right angled green from the right edge of the fairway (i.e. where today's bunker is) is slim, the option is there provided one can hit a shaped shot of great skill.

Is this a higher form of architecture? Is this an example of where 'less is more'? Don't build the bunker, don't provide a set way/road map on how to play a hole, let the golfer be duped into 'playing safe' , provide bail out room for one and all, one less bunker to mess around with maintenance-wise, etc.

Though the bunker looks great and plays like a hazard, it (accidentally perhaps) directs people to the best angle into the green. Does this bunker represent lazy architecture and would the hole would be better off without it?

Cheers,

 

The question is relative to the mixed party game.  When a hole is played by players of an equal level it is perhaps a very good hole.  When played by players of mixed levels it is one of the biggest sins of design.  I've never understood the hazards that force layups leaving mixed games with a great advantage for the better player.  Example, if I were to play the hole with my grandfather and we played it from the proper tees, we'd both lay up and I'd have a 8 iron in and he'd be hitting 3 wood.  Not an equitable setting.  Rather the hole would be better if it tempted the better players greed by only extending the hazard across half of the fairway or leaving something to hit at on one side or the other.  To often I think design fails to consider the game played by players at mixed tee and if this was considered the architecture would be better!

Cheers!

JT

Is it a resort course or a member's course?

At a resort course it could actually be a less-subtle way of encouraging the player to  challenge the OB left and be surprised by the excellent angle into the green. Also on a resort course there will be plenty of players who take any penal bunker 250 yards off the tee as an irresistable challenge to be engaged whether or not it offers a strategic advantage when overcome. If so, it's a cool double-cross for the overly aggressive self-style "big hitter".

On a member's course the assumption is that the player will be familiar with the results of various options and it's hard to see what purpose the bunker serves beyond the visual. However, it certainly ups the ante for someone whose intended line is well left but who mis-aims or mis-shapes the shot and hits into the hazard. It becomes a full-shot penalty rather than the half-shot cost (or perhaps less depending on hole location) of simply being too far right. There's a big difference between "I want it left but bailing out right just means a bad angle" and "I want it left and bailing out right means wedging out and having a 150-yard third shot".

I wouldn't consider it lazy or wrong. It is outside-the-box thinking, however. I'd prefer the bunker to be on the left side of the fairway -- challenging long hitters to clear it if they want the best angle into the green. Yes, that means there would be two reasons to bail out right, but you don't deserve much when you bail out, and it sounds like you wouldn't get much in this case.

I'd be sure that almost any shot that cleared the bunker and stayed in bounds ended up in a favorable spot. With great risk should come great reward.

The think it depends on the eye of the beholder and his golf belief system.

If you're someone who believes in visible, confrontable hazards, you probably say it's great.

If you're someone who prefers the "indirect tax" approach, where risks and rewards are more nebulous, you probably say the bunker is redundant and the hole would be better without it.

If you're Shivas, you say, 250? 260? Who even thinks about that. I'm gonna blast driver over it and have a lob wedge that I can hold from any angle.

If you're an architect interested in rankings and the improved opportunities that come along with them, you probably put the bunker in.

In an ideal world, I'd say you have a course with some holes that provide direct challenges to be confronted/avoided and some holes with fewer visual clues.

I personally would probably lean toward no bunker, but I can see it either way.

How's that for fence sitting?

At 250 out the bunker is more an issue for the better players as 90% of the rest of us won't be able to reach it.  We'll still have everything we can handle regardless of the bunker.  Sounds like the bunker adds strength and interest to the better player as he now has complications to consider.

JC

"...Don't build the bunker, don't provide a set way/road map on how to play a hole, let the golfer be duped into 'playing safe',"

That's where you sold me! Lull the golfer into a false sense of security off the tee and make him pay for in indirectly. "Fake-out" architecture is one of the highest and best forms of architecture there is!  

Ran,
I agree with George Pazin, I like it either way.

Maybe it could be described as the modern version of a topped shot bunker.

Sounds a lot like what I termed Tom Fazio's "anti-strategy" approach, which goes like this...

Challenge the fearsome bunker or other hazard on your drive only to be rewarded with the most difficult angle or carry on your approach.

Play safely away from the fearsome bunker  or other hazard on your drive only to be penalized with the most direct, open, advantageous approach angle.  

Mike;

Great minds think alike.    Wouldn't it be funny if this was a Fazio course.

But if I play left, while I'm rewarded with a straight approach to the green and through the greenside bunkers, I'm robbed of the opportunity to play to the green in a Redan-like manner (angled green).  

So the architect gave you a directional bunker.  Since there is OB left, they are not telling you to play it as far left as possible.  They are potentially saying if you want the best angle, you're going to need to hit a precise shot off the tee.

And if you're a long hitter, you might have the challenge (and the potential thrill) of two challenging shots.

Whatever happened to the old philosophy of "sportyness" in golf, where players took the path of greater challenge for the sake of great challenge?  Would the game really have been that much fun if we only sought out direct paths to certain points on a hole?

The out of bounds is the principal hazard, and the strategy associated with it is there, regardless of the bunker.  You are still rewarded with a better angle to the green if you drive close to the o.b.

The bunker is a secondary hazard, placed to accent the hole visually and to give players of a certain length something extra to think about.  If everyone is playing the hole from 430 yards then it is primarily of interest to the good golfer and it's okay for it to be there; but if the average player can't get past it from the middle tees, then it is pretty penal toward them.

Most modern architects would put the bunker there just so they "did something" with the tee shot, instead of relying on a boundary as a principal hazard.

What would I have done?  It would depend on the rest of the course, and what we're trying to accomplish.

For Tom Paul:  Reverse Psychology 301:  The bunker on the right could also sucker a lot of good players into playing close to or over it, thinking they were improving their position [or just showing off their skill], only to discover they get a worse angle as a result.

Tom Doak;

Agreed...my anti-strategy analogy only applies to holes where the bunker (in this case) is the primary hazard and I didn't read close enough where Ran mentioned the OB.

However..

Don't you think the type of "fool me once" strategies you mentioned in Arch 301 are only effective once?  In the case of a resort course, I guess that might be ok but you could spend your single client visit pissing off the player with deception but in any other case where the course would have a regular clientele, doesn't that trick only work "once", by definition?