It makes sense that sand bunkers would be chosen as hazards in the British Isles as golf courses were first built given they fit in very naturally with links and duneland where there is natural sand.

It also makes sense that the concept would be imported to the US given the games Scottish roots.

However, while sand bunkers fit in naturally with linksland, they dont really seem to fit in naturally in a sterile tree-lined parkland setting in the same way they do in a dunes setting.

It will be interesting to see if architects will invent "new" hazards that have not been tried yet given the trend in architecture to fit the course to the natural terrain (at least this being the case with the better architects)- these "new" hazards may work better in certain environments that more traditional hazards and still be at heart of the game's classica roots.

Evan and TommyN:

That’s more than an excellent question, and also a very difficult one to ask because the sand bunker has apparently become perceived to be almost a necessary ingredient of a golf course. But is it really, and if so, why? If it has become, over the evolution of golf and architecture, perceived to be almost a necessary ingredient of golf and architecture one certainly can ask why. Is it now only because most all golfers have come to expect sand bunkering on a golf course even if there is no naturally occurring sand within a hundred miles of that golf course? Would golfers today generally perceive a golf course to be incomplete somehow if it had no sand bunkers where no sand was naturally occurring within a hundred or two hundred miles? That’s an excellent question and one that should be looked at carefully on here.

Max Behr wrote on this subject as deeply and eloquently as any I’ve ever seen. He analyzed the use of the sand bunker in an historic and evolutionary sense. He analyzed it in the sense of its inherent naturalness, or lack of it, in various settings. And Behr wrote on golf and golf architecture’s philosophical relationship to nature and what appeared to the golfer to be natural as deeply and eloquently as anyone I’ve ever seen. He wrote constantly on the relationship of what appeared natural compared to what appeared artificial to the golfer. He wrote constantly on the consequences of the distinctions between what appeared natural and what appeared artificial to a golfer. Matter of fact, the perception by the golfer of that distinction became almost the fundamental theme of all Behr wrote about on the subject of golf architecture.

Behr even wrote an article entitled “The Natural Use of Sand” in the 1920s. I’d be glad to discuss the subject particularly using the history and logic of what Behr said about it but I won’t if the contributors begin to joke again about Behr and his writing style and simply make that the subject of this thread instead of this obviously interesting and fundamental question.
 
Behr, in his extensive writing on architecture occasionally referred to golf’s ‘necessary exceptions’ when he wrote about those few features in architecture that could never be made to look as if the architect did NOT make them. In all cases those ‘necessary exceptions’ were tees, fairways and greens, prepared with short grass. In some cases, he included the sand bunker where sand was not naturally occurring, and occasionally he included prepared rough.

So Evan’s question is a good one. Are sand bunkers absolutely essential on a golf course or can architects come up with a “new” type of hazard in the future to replace them, even if only occasionally?

Well, we do know that there is probably not a course in the world that does not have tees, fairways and greens, but what about one that has no sand bunkers? There’re plenty of mundane courses that have none, and I know a few that’re pretty interesting. And then there’s the notable exception of Royal Ashdowne Forest that has none by royal decree. So while sand bunkers may appear to be a universal ingredient in golf and architecture they really aren’t. And then there’s the question of what could replace them, what a “new” hazard feature could be, as Evan asked? There’re a number of them, some very well known. Would you like me to relate some of the fundamental points Behr made on this subject Evan?

Sean:

When Evan asks what a "new" hazard feature could be other than a sand bunker, I don't know that he necessarily means something that's never before been done or used in golf architecture.

Max Behr referred to the hazard "dimension" as generally being the "vertical" dimension, or height, vs length or width.

Bill Coore sometimes refers to the "features" in golf, even hazard features, as being akin to "notes" used in the arrangement of a symphony, for instance----eg they are interchangeable.

We know of a number of things that're natural or appear to be that have the vertical dimension (height) that can be used as hazard features---eg natural topography, broken or undulating ground, mounds and hollow, certainly trees and to some extent to the lie of the ball---rough.

Of course, Behr didn't say a golf architect couldn't use features on a golf course, including hazard features, that were clearly artificial and man-made looking, he just apparently thought it was a better idea to make things look like nature made them somehow.

But if golf architects decided in the future to use "new" hazard features that are artificial looking the possiblities would be virtually limitless, don't you think?

Evan

The National Greenkeeper, November 1930, discusses the first Hole at Merion Cricket Club as having a "pocket of sand in a mound at the back of the Green punishes an overplayed approach".

This really wasn't a bunker, but certainly a hazard, and a difficult one at that.  Hitting from an elevated mound from sand to a downslope run to the cup.

In the 40's or 50's RTJ wrote that different species juniper should be used as an American version of heather and gorse. The only course I've seen that uses it in large quanities is the nine-hole Dunes course in New Buffalo, MI--very effectively I might add.

It would seem obvious to me that we Americans have quietly introduced the world to a new form of hazard in the last 25 years:

THE CART PATH  !!!!  (Complete with concrete curbing)

Courses in the coal region of PA (Pottsville area specifically) have been known to use fly ash (half burned coal) and coal slag in hazards.

It's indigenous to the area and quite unique. One of my favorite courses, Mountain Valley Golf Club in Mahanoy City, PA has employed both to some success, and it plays remarkbly like sand.

Tom has a great point, two of my favorite holes in golf employ trees at some very strategic points, both these holes have no bunkers on them either.

The nature of a hazard is to dare it, and in doing so succesfully, reap rewards... trees offer a third dimension that other hazards do not employ and can do more to shape a shot or define how a hole should be played than any manmade hazard.

Trees are also natural to many golf course sites so their effective use falls in line with a minimalist approach to golf design.

Not so much sacrilege, just underutilized or misused.

About strips of rough in a fairway...

Wyncote Golf Club in Oxford, PA has a hole (13th, since they flipped nines a few years back) where a long strip of rough splits the fairway length-wise, and the golfer is forced to choose a side of the fairway to hit or even attempt to carry the rough.

It plays similarly to a "Principal's nose" style of hole as the favored side is between the rough and OB, however, the rough isn't as penalizing as sand.

I think an interesting hazard feature in place of sand bunkers is the idea of higher and natural grass area on say low grade mounds of hollows within fairway areas.

Another idea that fascinates me is something that simply looks like obsoleted bunkering of which there are plenty on courses, including mine. There's an awesome on at Myopia. Have any of you heard of the concept in building architecture of "deconstructed" architecture? There's quite a bit of it that goes on around me---and it's fascinating in many ways! The same concept could easily be applied to golf course architecture!

The interesting thing about that idea is they can be every bit as effective and strategic as a sand bunker can but they don't need sand---and they certainly don't remotely the same amount of man-power, maintenance and cost.

I realize it's not been discussed on here yet but we should all realize that perhaps the biggest reason for the highly defined and perhaps emaculate sand bunker in golf may not actually be aesthetics---it probably has far more to do with simply THE RULES OF GOLF!

In my opinion, the evolutionary effect of the Rules of Golf on everything about bunkering and its evolution may be the most significant of all.

Tom

I have played a few courses with tall rough grown wild in fairway hollows, Burnham & Berrow springs to mind.  My first reaction was "I don't care for this", but on reflection it isn't really different from a bunker and I get a practice swing!

I can understand Mr. Daley's point about walls etc., but the use of the wall on The Pit at North Berwick is a stroke of genius.  On the same note, I am not keen on the wall for the 3rd hole.  Also, the drive a #17 of TOC would not be nearly as much fun without the risk of clattering the hotel.

Ciao

Sean

RJ:

I very much hear what you say there and I completely understand your reasoning.

However, the thought of anyone on here actually saying that they firmly believe that no tree should be used on ANY golf course ANYWHERE in a strategic sense simply because somewhere they may be misused is not only a revolting thought to hear--to me it really is one that's doctrinaireism to the extreme, in my opinion.

This isn't all that different to me than these multi threads I started last week on "purists". The reason I started them was only an attempt to get those who refer to themselves as "purists" on here (I called them "so-called purist" and that ultra-sensitive contributor David Moriarty seemed to take such personal or philosophic umbrage over it that he started another thread simply to bait me into explaining why I even used the words "so-called" with the term purist!) to more fully and intelligently explain what they mean by a what "purity" is in, say, a restoration project of a classic course.

Can they explain and discuss that and answer intelligent and realistic questions? Not even close, in my opinion. And why not? Probably because the whole thing has just gotten to be a massive form of "me-tooism" in which they don't even know how to answer intelligent real-world question of restoration projects or they just don't want to for reasons that seem obvious to me.

And when I said I, myself, am probably an architectural "purist" MacWood shot back that I was probably a purist somewhere between Goodale and Fazio! What does he mean by that? Well, I'd like to know but of course he has no thought of answering! I guess he thinks all he needs to do is put a "smiley" face behind a remark like that or just tell me I'm over reacting when I ask him to explain himself. Of course I probably shoudnt have called him a piece of S... but I removed that.

I'd like to see him discuss what he means in a real world sense, though, instead of just retorting with additional questions or not responding at all. But I have a feeling he never will intelligently respond! I don't think Moriaty will either. It was a mini-victory today to get him to answer two of my questions on here. His answer to both was "NO". That's an answer but not much of a discussion!  

Adam

I am having difficulty envisioning a convex bunker.  How does the sand stay in place?

Ciao

Sean