What Is The Point of a Bunkerless Hole?

« **on:** August 27, 2005, 07:51:29 PM »

In the confidential guide there's a section best 18 holes without a bunker.

I've played but a few of them, and quite liked the ones I have, but what is it exactly bunkerless holes do, or are meant to do?

Is it just variety? if so, why aren't there more of them?

Is it to instill momentary doubt and thus caution?

They have a lot of fun short game options around the green, which I would have thought meant there might be more of them.

Most of the ones in the book are fours, from memory, are they the type of hole best suited to this design feature? (Portrush's 5th is a super hole, as is Silloth's 13th)

how do they best work?

« **Reply #1 on:** August 27, 2005, 09:39:18 PM »

Mark,

I think the land has to offer unique features in order to make a bunkerless hole work well.

# 5 at Hidden Creek is such a hole.

So was the 6th, 7th, 10th and 13th at Preakness Hills until green commitees inserted bunkers.

In each case the land offered sufficient challenge, such that a bunker was unnecessary in order for the hole to stand on its unique architectural merits as provided by the landforms and highlighted by the architect..

« **Reply #2 on:** August 27, 2005, 09:50:34 PM »

What is the point of bunkers on a course with no natural sand?

A salute to The Old Course?

« **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2005, 10:32:34 PM »

To me, there is no point to keeping a hole bunkerless for the sake of doing so. I know some designers who do; Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish used to like to include one bunkerless hole per course.

I'll be happy to build a bunkerless hole where I think the hole would not benefit from any bunkers being added to it, and I admire all the holes so listed in The Confidential Guide. Usually, however, there is somewhere a bunker might add something.

« **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2005, 10:48:35 PM »

How common are courses that are entirely bunkerless? I know of only one. It is a county owned track just outside of Memphis called Edmund Orgill Golf Course. Not a very good course by any standard, but great fun if you enjoy the thrill of shooting 5-10 stokres better than you normally do at any other course. It's got several "drive and chip" par 4s, and there is nothing around to protect the greens.

There's actually one pretty nice par 4 there that wraps along a big, natural lake. It always gets picked amongst the best public holes in Memphis (not like that is a crowning golf achievement, but I suppose it is better than nothing.)

« **Reply #5 on:** August 27, 2005, 11:13:55 PM »

I agree with Tom, while we have a bunkerless hole, the 18th at The Ritz in Jupiter, just dig me a St. Andrew big bunker with a stacked unside down sod face about 5 feet deep to the left of the green, the bailout area, and the hole would be greatly enhanced

Ditto with the 9th hole at Lakota Canyon, same side, left

« **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2005, 08:59:34 AM »

It is rather ironic, but when you are building on sandy soil (where bunkers can naturally occur), fast and firm non-bunkered areas are far more interesting and strategically challenging than bunkers, and when you are building on non-sandy soils (where bunkers are unnatural), you need bunkers to add that interest and challenge, as the ground itself cannot be maintained fast and firm......

« **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2005, 09:44:59 AM »

One of the oddest and most interesting things about studying the entire history and evolution of golf course architecture is almost everyone, including most golf course architects think golf or a golf hole is not complete without the use of sand bunkering, even in areas where sand is not naturally occuring.

Behr wrote a fairly explanatory article about this. In a real way the sand bunker is that one penal/architectural vestige that may not have been necessary that hung on in architecture when golf first moved out of the linksland where bunkering always was naturally occuring. Obviously noone ever questioned it's use elsewhere and now they probably never will. It appears it became perceived as a necessity in golf and architecture.

It became one of every architects primary arististic and strategic expressions.

It appears Flynn considered sand bunkering to be somewhat of an architectural supplement as he either didn't use it or used it lightly on land that already had some kind of natural interest such as topography but on flat and uninteresting land he used it prevalently.

« **Reply #8 on:** August 28, 2005, 11:33:04 AM »

When the golf hole is routed upon land that presents alternative strategy, variable wind conditions, shot making talent, and resistence to scoring from tee to green, all based upon the laying upon that land of that golf hole, who the heck needs bunkers?

Ideal Golf design, first and formost requires excellent ground contour. Frequency of rolls in the ground, and good turf growing soils can provide a golf designer with the opportunity to present a challenge that uses "every club in the bag", even the sand wedge, where no sand bunker is actually present, IMHO.

I'd rather play an interesting golf hole with ground contouring and directional/distance variables, with an interesting green at the end, than a one dimensional, bunker strewn, eye candy riddled corridor.

« **Reply #9 on:** August 28, 2005, 02:24:53 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on August 27, 2005, 10:32:34 PM

To me, there is no point to keeping a hole bunkerless for the sake of doing so. I know some designers who do; Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish used to like to include one bunkerless hole per course.

I'll be happy to build a bunkerless hole where I think the hole would not benefit from any bunkers being added to it, and I admire all the holes so listed in The Confidential Guide. Usually, however, there is somewhere a bunker might add something.

Tom, your last sentence made me wonder if would you include TOC 18 among those holes? i.e. given a free hand would you add any bunkers to TOC 18? If so, where?

« **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2005, 02:30:40 PM »

You end up with bunkerless holes when the natural land contour or surroundings is fully sufficient to provide all the thrills, challenge and framing a hole would ever need.

At Muskoka Bay the 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 14th, 17th all have no bunkers due to whalebacks of rock, trees, or severely wonderful natural contours. On these holes a bunker would have to be forced in just to have one, so why ruin a great natural enviornment for a bunker.

« **Reply #11 on:** August 28, 2005, 02:33:30 PM »

Jim: No, I would not think of adding a bunker to the 18th hole on The Old Course. A small bunker there would be totally out of scale and out of place as you come back into town. [Ditto the 18th at North Berwick.] And I think the Valley of Sin is an adequate hazard for that hole.

« **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2005, 03:01:39 PM »

The question of this thread is "What is the point of a bunkerless hole?"

It seems to me the more logical thing to ask (in a clear pallete sort of way) is why does an architect use a bunker or bunkers on any particular landform he selects for a golf hole?

If someone answered---because all golf holes should have bunkers, I'd disagree.

There also seem to be a number of contributors to this website who seem to be under the general impression that the more bunkers a golf course has the better, the more remarkable or more impressive it is.

I sure don't want to regenerate that Aronimink bunker argument but I feel it is a legitimate question to Tom MacWood to ask him why exactly he thinks Aronimink was more remarkable simply because the course was built with 2-3 bunkers in basically the same place and basically covering the same area as the Ross drawing single bunkers?

« **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2005, 04:04:27 AM »

"under the general impression that the more bunkers a golf course has the better, the more remarkable or more impressive it is. "

Tom Paul;

I think that statement is true, however, for some holes - as opposed to an entire course, of course - to wit, Kingston Heath's 15th hole.

What does a bunkerless hole "do" to the better player?

Confuse you as to what the correct strategy is, thus leading you into more difficult or incorrect positions?

Make you more hesitant/bold on a par three, for example, with commensurate problems/reward?

Encourage you to attack more vigorously, and perhaps thus make the hole harder to play than it otherwise might be?

I quite like the few I've played, because, as others have mentioned, they generally occur on a dramatic piece of land.

I find they encourage you to experiment with different options on drives and /or approaches, because the trouble isn't so obviously penal - and that's a good thing.

« **Reply #14 on:** August 29, 2005, 06:51:08 AM »

The "point" of the bunkerless hole depends on the bunkerless hole. We have two in a row at my course. The 15th is a 455 yard dogleg right par 4...lots of room to the left off the tee...jail on the right...the green is long and very skinny (narrow side to side) and drops off on three sides...from the mid point of the green to the back it has lots of contour and is difficult to pin...

The 16th is a 495 yard par 5...straight shot...a pond runs along the left side of the fairway from about the 150 marker up and around the back of the green...a large weeping willow guards the left side of the green...it actually hangs out a little over the left side of the green...a large mound fronts the right quarter of the green...behind the green it drops off about 12 feet down to the pond....ugly little hole.

How would a bunker benefit either hole? It wouldn't in my opinion...if we installed a bunker the questions would become...whats the point of the bunker?

« **Reply #15 on:** August 29, 2005, 06:58:23 AM »

MarkF:

All those questions (points) of yours are good ones, in my opinion. I think that's precisely the best way to approach a subject like this. Generally, in architecture, I feel the best way to approach it is to try to analyze the entire spectrum of what a golfer will think---and think IN PLAYING the hole.

This notion of designing golf courses and golf holes to try to merely achieve a reaction from golfers of---"Oh, isn't this pretty and soothing, and doesn't it just make me feel good or peaceful?" is certainly a valid one in golf architecture (the increasingly prevalent influence of landscape architecture on golf course architecture) but I feel it should never be the primary consideration of a golf architect. I'd rather see the architect work to unsettle the golfer in some way so the golfer could use his mind and strength of mind to learn to settle himself back done and do something intelligent and effective in play.

In my opinion, golf architecture should be more the chess game between the golfer and the architect and not some psychological "feel good" session. There're people the golfer can go to for that but I don't think it should be a golf course architect.

"It has been my good fortune to bring happiness to many men, and great trouble to many men."
Donald Ross in 1930

« **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2005, 08:40:10 PM »

The 16th hole at Four Streams outside DC has no bunkeers. It is shortish par four dogleg right. The smart play is three wood or long iron a shot of 150 yards in. The fun play is to cut the corner and have 60-80yards in. The narrow green is sloping and falls off at the back. The green calls for a lofted shot with spin. It has a false front that repels a runup shot. It has no bunkers and many who play it don't even notice it because of the other challenges. Steve Smyers designed it and Steve Smyers loves bunkers.

« **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2005, 09:46:14 PM »

TommyW:

That's an interesting point. I played that hole during the Mason Dixon Matches about 4-5 years ago and you know I don't think I even noticed there were no bunkers on that hole and the irony of that since Steve Smyers does have the reputation of Mr Bunker.

On another note, my sense is that Steve Smyers is also an architect that's a bit more than a little concerned about the effects of distance on the future of architecture---and the good news is apparently he has been proposed to be on the Executive Committee of the USGA. Will he speak his mind about the distance problem and architecture? Let's hope so.

« **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2005, 10:41:48 PM »

Tom D.

I disagree with you. I think that there are good reasons for deliberately keeping a hole bunkerless. Besides the points already mentioned by others of taking advantage of natural features, you can't overlook the variety and contrast of keeping one or two holes bunkerless. A bunkerless hole or two provides a good psychological shock to the player who will have been used to playing toward, away from, or over bunkers.

Nor do I necessarily think there need be natural features in order for a bunkerless hole to make sense. Ross did this repeatedly on his Volcano hole. In fact, at Misquamicut there are consecutive bunkerless holes which illustrate the two extremes. The 8th is a completely manufactured volcano hole. The 9th, on the other hand, is short par 4, utilizes the natural topography brilliantly and presents enough challenge without bunkers.

« **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2005, 10:24:23 AM »

Here is one of my earlier post on bukerless holes. Apparently one of the great things about this hole is that Tommy and I see diffeerent ways to approach the green. Most importantly it makes you think...a lot.

"The 16th at Four Streams designed by Steve Smyers.

Despite not being at all shy about using bunkers (and at times very severe bunkers) Smyers did not use any bunkers at the 16th at Four Streams despite being a fairly short par four. The hole is defended primarilly by a green that angles away from left to right with a swale front right and long grass and woods behind.

The hole is only 357 from the members tees but plays much shorter for those that can cut the dogleg over the trees. Many times the 50 yard second shot that the player is left with creates serious indecision. Many players opt to bump a 7 iron or so coming in from the left side of the green and playing the contours to the center or the right side. I have also seen putter from 30 to 50 yard as well. Distance control is critical if a wedge or short iron is played.

It is a fun hole that sees a two on occasion and sixes more than occasionally."

« **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2005, 12:24:04 PM »

I've wondered before about the exact difference, in terms of scoring penalty to the golfer, of a sand bunker vs. a grass bunker, depending on the length of rough allowed to grow in the depression.

Is there really a difference in terms of scoring penalty?

If there isn't much difference, then doesn't that make the use of sand bunkers, particularly when building on non-sandy soil, more of an aesthetic choice (or perhaps a "keeping-with-tradition choice") than a strategic one?

And another question. It's obvious that the use of sand on inland courses not built on sandy soil is a result of the desire to emulate the hazards of seaside courses. Hitting a shot from sand requires certain techniques from a golfer. In fact, each natural surface requires a different technique, whether hitting from hard-pan or pine needles or soft turf or hard turf........Are there courses where a wide range of natural surfaces besides sand were used by the architect purposefully to put pressures on shotmaking? Or should golf just be a sand and turf game?

« **Reply #21 on:** August 31, 2005, 03:53:44 PM »

My apologies for killing what I thought was an interesting thread.

To answer the question itself, I'd say that the point of a bunkerless hole is exactly the same as the point of a hole that has bunkers aplenty.

To challenge a golfer's ability to execute strategy and shotmaking, and to provide an aesthetically attractive or interesting golfing environment.

The point is the same, it's just a matter of the method of execution.

« **Reply #22 on:** August 31, 2005, 09:16:19 PM »

SPDB:

A number of those holes at Misquamicutt are so quirky and neat even if they had a bunch of bunkers on them I probably wouldn't have even noticed them.

Actually, I'm intimately familiar with the Volcano hole (as you call it), particularly the left side of it. The reason being the last time I played there (in a tournament) my partner had lent his hash pipe to one of his friends who apparently hit a ball to the left of the Volcano hole. He must have laid the hash pipe down in the rough to hit his shot and left it there.

That night during cocktails my partner asked for his hash pipe back and his friend couldn't produce it. My God what a catastrophe. Screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Seems my partner had had that hash pipe for decades and it had become a loving part of his family culture.

As stupid as I thought it was I was a good guest and found myself out on my hands and knees in the gloaming with a bunch of other rich good-for-nothings looking for my partner's hash pipe in the rough to the left of the volcano hole.

No dice, and my partner went into a funk and played like weasel crap the next day forcing me to shoot a 68 on my own ball against my will.

As we slipped back into the clubhouse after squeaking out a win, one of the asst pros who apparently knew a thing or two about my partner and mind-expanding substances too sort of overhand palmed my partner's little antique hash pipe back into his hand.

It seems some straight-arrow member had hit his ball over to the left of the Volcano hole and found his ball resting against this very odd little movable obstruction---eg my partner's hash pipe! And he turned it in to the pro shop.

I spent a lot of quality time on the Volcano hole but frankly I wasn't looking to see if it had any bunkers.

« **Reply #23 on:** September 02, 2005, 10:32:47 PM »

I've been thinking about this for a few days now and I think the answer comes on a couple of levels:

1. The bunkerless hole is a visual pallete cleaner. Like a wine between courses in a grand meal. I think that is why the bunkerless hole usually comes on the back nine, often times setting up "the prettiest hole on the course". Would the pretty hole be so stuniing if you hadn't just been vissually toned down?

2. The bunkerless hole is a great mental trap! Often times we associate bunkers with difficulty. The bunkerless hole with hideen teeth is a true architectural gem. The best holes of this type leave players wondering, "How did I just make double on such an easy hole?" Answer: It wasn't that easy.

3. In the flow of the journey through the course. The bunkerless hole is the architects change-up pitch. Granted anyone can throw a palm ball and call it a change-up and in golf architecture many do. But when you get an architectural Frank Viola sending you an all world circle change. You know it.

Cheers!

JT

« **Reply #24 on:** September 04, 2005, 04:55:19 PM »

What is the point of a hole with bunkers?

To me, its all about variety. If the land itself is unique, why ruin it by adding bunkers?

News:

Mark_F

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

Tom_Doak

Tim Bert

cary lichtenstein

ForkaB

TEPaul

RJ_Daley

Jim Nugent

Ian Andrew

Tom_Doak

TEPaul

Mark_F

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

Tommy Williamsen

TEPaul

SPDB

Paul Carey

Kirk Gill

Kirk Gill

TEPaul

Jim Thompson

Yannick Pilon