More bunkers then...less now....?

« **on:** May 15, 2006, 06:23:18 PM »

There seems to be an unusual number of threads on here recently on bunkering.

The recent Shennecosset thread got my attention when Donnie Beck (Fishers Island's super) said he grew up playing Shennecosset and he would've loved to have played it when it had 169 original Ross bunkers.

Tom MacWood, who's never been to Aronimink thought that the recent bunker restoration was a mistake because the original 210 bunkers were not restored but instead the course restored the approximately 80 bunkers Ross drew for the course that apparenetly was changed during original construction. From the Ross drawings vs the original aerials it appeared the Ross bunkering was in the same places but bigger. The 210 bunkers were basically broken up into 2s and 3s in the same placements as Ross's larger 80 bunkers.

George Bahto has mentioned that NGLA had a considerable amount more bunkering originally than it does now.

I remember people on here marveling that Oakmont had many more bunkers under its "Fownes regime" than it does now.

Herbert Leeds kept adding bunkering to Myopia if he saw someone get away with something he felt they shouldn't.

William Flynn wrote if a club wanted more of a championship course he would bunker the course differently than he would if a championship course was not called for. Shinnecock had more individual bunkers than it does now.

Joe Dye removed some bunkering from the Creek because he apparently felt they were economically unjustified.

Hugh Alison recommended that some of the multiple original partitioned bunkers of PVGC have their partitions removed and put into larger single bunkers.

My own golf course lost all its original Ross "top shot" bunkering in the 1940s when Wayne Stiles said they were unfair to higher handicappers. Gil Hanse wanted to restore them all but the club thought they were too expensive and basically irrelevent, strategically and otherwise.

What's the story?

Do any of you consider that a course is better or better architecture the more bunkers it has?

Personally, I'm a fan of bunkering that is more minimal but extremely strategically placed and strategically functional. I love the thought of a hole where almost the entire strategy really can revolve around a single bunker, for instance.

Perhaps one of the real break-through American designs of all time was ANGC that had only 22 bunkers originally.

Some such as Bob Crosby think the unique original ANGC design was perhaps generally misunderstood. Only 22 original bunkers?! Interesting.

What's your feeling on bunkering, and the amount of it?

« **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:27:41 PM »

Less perfectly placed is more.

If your in sand dunes the entire course should look like it's in one gigantic bunker.

You can't get any more middle of the road then that.

« **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:09:25 AM »

Quote from: Thomas Naccarato on May 15, 2006, 06:27:41 PM

Less perfectly placed is more.

If your in sand dunes the entire course should look like it's in one gigantic bunker.

You can't get any more middle of the road then that.

Tommy,

How quickly you forgot the greatest bunkered course of all.

HOLLYWOOD.

If you could post the original I provided you I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

« **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:57:44 AM »

I love instances where a singular bunker is placed and it immediately draws your attention to it. Instinctively, you then often steer away from the bunker and into potentially more trouble on the other side of the green or fairway.

A good example is the immense crater to the left of #4 green at Sand Hills. From the fairway, you can't help but notice and fear it (especially if you've been in it). So, then you just happen to aim a little further right. And, then you proceed to watch your golf ball trickle down the steep slope right of the green. That leaves you a rather fun pitch shot.

A bunker is often quickly visually processed as the hazard to stay clear of. When the hole is well designed, this thought process can lead you into trouble elsewhere.

« **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:15:51 AM »

Pat, I will certainly do that as soon as I can find webspace so it can get posted big enough. Photobucket isn't holding to their end of the free bargain anymore!

« **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2006, 06:18:47 AM »

Tom,

I wonder if this is not the eventual final byproduct of Tilly's PGA Tour. As you are well aware he consistently recommended bunker removal for playability and maintenance cost purposes.

He may helped to create a new bunkering mentality among that era of architects and superintendents.

« **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:26:13 AM »

I particularly like gathering bunkers that are effectively larger than they appear. These work especially well for private courses given the longer learning curve required to understand their true effects. With this style of bunkers fewer are required, which is fine on sites that are far removed from natural sand.

« **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:35:47 AM »

I love Robert Trent Jones's bunkers at Oakland Hills. Lots and lots of bunkers pinching the fairways!

« **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2006, 08:19:04 AM »

TEP,

I am more of the mind of being very judious in the use of bunkers, however in visiting a Mac/Raynor course that has a tremendous number of bunkers I was struck by how invisible they seemed, in other words after walking the course I would have guessed that there were at least half as few bunkers than what my host told me. The features/bunkers were built close to the ground, below the ground mostly, and positioned in accordance with placement as relates to strategy rather than placement as relates to visibility. It helped that the terrain was somewhat modest in its pitch and roll.

I think some of my opposition to lots of bunkers, somewhat due to construction and maintenance costs, is due to so many modern courses that go to great lengths to make certain you see each and every one of the bunkers so after some time you really grow tired of all of the static on the landscape, the landscape actually gets deprived of showing off its own natural beauty and in effect is shoved to the background as the bunkers come to the foreground and become the sole focus of the landscape.

« **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2006, 08:40:03 AM »

Kelly:

I feel just about the same way you do with so much bunkering beinng so visible.

The Macdonald/Raynor style with generally steep vertical grass faces and not much sand showing to the golfer is probably a borrowed style from Europe in some sense---eg the deep (below level) pot type bunkering.

I happen to like that type of bunkering because it's so much less obvious to the golfer and I feel it actually forces him to analyze the landscape more carefully to determine where the danger lies.

I'm for anything in architecture that induces a golfer to analyze more carefully the landscape of the hole before him as to what it means in play.

Matter of fact I'm a big fan of golf holes that look from the tee far different than when one gets out on the fairway. Examples of such hoes are Maidstones #1, #7, #15, #17 and NGLA's #1, #2, #7, #11, #14, #16.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:11:41 AM »

Perhaps it's just me, but when I can't see a bunker in the fairway, it's effect is magnified. I will play as if its effective collection area is much wider than the collection area of a bunker I can see. Even if the two bunkers (other than their visibility) are physically identical.

Which is why blind fairway bunkers ought to be used more often. Because their effective "footprint" is bigger, they can obviate the need for a larger number of visible fairway bunkers.

Bob

« **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:30:40 AM »

Quote from: BCrosby on May 16, 2006, 09:11:41 AM

Perhaps it's just me, but when I can't see a bunker in the fairway, it's effect is magnified. I will play as if its effective collection area is much wider than the collection area of a bunker I can see. Even if the two bunkers (other than their visibility) are physically identical.

Which is why blind fairway bunkers ought to be used more often. Because their effective "footprint" is bigger, they can obviate the need for a larger number of visible fairway bunkers.

Bob

Bob,

I think you might find more agreement with your sentiments on a private vs public course. However, I think it totally appropriate on a public course as well, althought my opinion is definately out of the mainstream. I am not certain why the public golfer is held is so low regard. Some claim it is for the speed of play and therefore the good of the game, but I think there is more to it than that, but in any regard I think the public is in need of the best we have to offer in architecture.

Your sentiments are great, thanks for sharing them.

« **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:34:09 AM »

Quote from: Kelly Blake Moran on May 16, 2006, 08:19:04 AM

I think some of my opposition to lots of bunkers, somewhat due to construction and maintenance costs, is due to so many modern courses that go to great lengths to make certain you see each and every one of the bunkers so after some time you really grow tired of all of the static on the landscape, the landscape actually gets deprived of showing off its own natural beauty and in effect is shoved to the background as the bunkers come to the foreground and become the sole focus of the landscape.

KBM -

That's exactly right. You nailed it.

There seems to be a rule today that all bunkers must be visible and all visible bunkers must be pretty. A corollary to that rule is that lots of bunkers is the sign of a good, well capitalized course. Even if it means placing extra bunkers outside playing areas.

All of this represents an architectural failure. In the sense that people are building these bunkers to avoid the challenge of analyzing and using natural fairway contours as part of the strategic calculus.

Bob

« **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:43:56 AM »

For greenside bunkering, I think one has to look no further than Royal Melbourne's gathering masterpieces..as such I agree with Wayne.
They serve to act as much larger hazards than they appear, which is the perfect example of Mackenzie's camouflage ideals.

For fairways.. I hate the modern day expanses of sand used to intimidate..ie..Doral etc.....
I much prefer the smaller and more penal deeper bunkers that are placed in areas that deserve to be punished rather than less penal bunkering used to collect marginal tee shots.

« **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2006, 11:06:00 AM »

"Bob,
I think you might find more agreement with your sentiments on a private vs public course. However, I think it totally appropriate on a public course as well, althought my opinion is definately out of the mainstream. I am not certain why the public golfer is held is so low regard. Some claim it is for the speed of play and therefore the good of the game, but I think there is more to it than that, but in any regard I think the public is in need of the best we have to offer in architecture."

Kelly and Bob;

Face it the semi-dictate that bunkering (and most any other architectural hazard feature) must be in plain and obvious view to the golfer at all times is the "fairness factor" run amok as well as simply the fear on the part of public golf courses that any form of hazard blindness will catch the first time client/player unaware (of course it might) and he will be critical and negative about the course and unlikely to return again.

Such a mind-set, while of course understandable, lacks courage in the hope and expectation that such a circumstance might logically bring any golfer caught unaware the first time back again to try his hand with the experience he's gained by his mistakes to do better the next time and thereafter.

As Tommy Armour said anything should only be blind once.

There's little question in my mind that public golfers would generally prefer to play the best and greatest of the private courses which do not necessarily kowtow to this perceived aversion (amongst public course operators) to what the experiences of mistakes from that which you are at first not aware can bring in continued and future interest with a golf course.

I see no reason at all why public golf courses cannot offer the same type of golf architecture as the best of the private membership golf courses do.

« **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:02:39 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 16, 2006, 11:06:00 AM

Kelly and Bob;

Face it the semi-dictate that bunkering (and most any other architectural hazard feature) must be in plain and obvious view to the golfer at all times is the "fairness factor" run amok as well as simply the fear on the part of public golf courses that any form of hazard blindness will catch the first time client/player unaware (of course it might) and he will be critical and negative about the course and unlikely to return again.

Such a mind-set, while of course understandable, lacks courage in the hope and expectation that such a circumstance might logically bring any golfer caught unaware the first time back again to try his hand with the experience he's gained by his mistakes to do better the next time and thereafter.

As Tommy Armour said anything should only be blind once.

There's little question in my mind that public golfers would generally prefer to play the best and greatest of the private courses which do not necessarily kowtow to this perceived aversion (amongst public course operators) to what the experiences of mistakes from that which you are at first not aware can bring in continued and future interest with a golf course.

I see no reason at all why public golf courses cannot offer the same type of golf architecture as the best of the private membership golf courses do.

I agree Tom. I think what Dylan said about the big music companies can be said about the media and the big operators they want it "sanitized and pasteurized". They have it all fucked up, and new design isn't worth pursuing if it had to be done their way.

« **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:26:08 PM »

Sooner or later, it all comes down to money.

We know it happened in the depression. We know it happened a lot in the 70's recession. And I have gotten two calls this week on my designs to come consult on removing unnecessary bunkers that they feel are raising their costs. (This in addition to three more courses who are doing it without my help since 2001)

If it isn't money, its speed of play, which translates to money for the Owner, at least in his mind.

I got to thinking about the bunker eliminations I have been involved in. Usually the powers that be have gotten rid of the bunkers that they feel see too much play or not enough. Exactly how they determine that, I am not sure, but like porn, I guess they know it when they see it.

If it is design, perhaps its the original minimalism, no? If Augusta can be great with 30 or so bunkers, why have more? I think that had a big influence on early bunker reductions.

« **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:30:24 PM »

I like the minimalist thinking in concept, but I have to ask this question.

Merion has something like 126 bunkers (the recent project removed some and added others so I don't know the count anymore).

For those of you who believe courses should have as few bunkers as possible, which bunkers at Merion would you remove?

« **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2006, 12:35:26 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 16, 2006, 11:06:00 AM

I see no reason at all why public golf courses cannot offer the same type of golf architecture as the best of the private membership golf courses do.

Tom,

That's absolutely correct and it always struck me as just incredibly patronizing and belittling when I hear others suggest some sort of "architecture lite" be standard for public courses.

« **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:20:10 PM »

Mike,

I would have to study any course to see. Obviously, Merion's famous white faces would be some of the last bunkers to be removed for "practical reasons" that other courses face.

BTW, I am not saying I favor the minimum bunkering as possible, just that it makes a lot of economic sense in today's economy to those who own golf courses.

As a 15 year old kid fascinated by gca, I thought my philosphy would be very few bunkers, but making those very deep to be true hazards that would affect strategy. Somewhere along the way in the real world, I ended up going with more, shallower bunkers for aesthetics. Maybe its time for a return!

« **Reply #20 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:24:46 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on May 16, 2006, 01:20:10 PM

As a 15 year old kid fascinated by gca, I thought my philosphy would be very few bunkers, but making those very deep to be true hazards that would affect strategy. Somewhere along the way in the real world, I ended up going with more, shallower bunkers for aesthetics. Maybe its time for a return!

Jeff,

With the right piece of property, I think a course with spare, but truly deep, visually frightening, and ultimately punishing bunkering would be almost a novel approach.

Think of the strategic implications of bunkers so deep and penal that it would be as likely for a top player to leave his first shot in the bunker as it would for him/her to get up and down.
Mike

« **Reply #21 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:44:41 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on May 16, 2006, 12:30:24 PM

I like the minimalist thinking in concept, but I have to ask this question.

Merion has something like 126 bunkers (the recent project removed some and added others so I don't know the count anymore).

For those of you who believe courses should have as few bunkers as possible, which bunkers at Merion would you remove?

Mike,

You'd have to first start with the bunkers bordering the creek on the left of #5 fairway. I'm not familiar with the original "story" of those bunkers, I know they were added during the recent changes, but they seem strategically to be located in an odd place. Also, I'd have to question the bunkers just past the creek fronting the 4th green. Like the bunkers on #5, I'm unaware of when they were built, or if they were a part of Wilson's original design. I think the majority of the course is brilliantly bunkered.

« **Reply #22 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:52:41 PM »

Quote from: JSlonis on May 16, 2006, 01:44:41 PM

You'd have to first start with the bunkers bordering the creek on the left of #5 fairway. I'm not familiar with the original "story" of those bunkers, I know they were added during the recent changes, but they seem strategically to be located in an odd place. Also, I'd have to question the bunkers just past the creek fronting the 4th green. Like the bunkers on #5, I'm unaware of when they were built, or if they were a part of Wilson's original design. I think the majority of the course is brilliantly bunkered.

Jamie,

Great minds think alike.

I was trying to see if I could get Tom Paul to agree to the immediate removal of these four blemishes on the arse of the golf course equivalent of Grace Kelly.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:14:54 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on May 16, 2006, 07:26:13 AM

I particularly like gathering bunkers that are effectively larger than they appear. These work especially well for private courses given the longer learning curve required to understand their true effects. With this style of bunkers fewer are required, which is fine on sites that are far removed from natural sand.

Wayne,

I agree, they were great features.

Sadly, they've practically disappeared on modern designs.

If you don't mind, I"ll start a seperate thread on that.

« **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2006, 05:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on May 16, 2006, 12:30:24 PM

I like the minimalist thinking in concept, but I have to ask this question.

Merion has something like 126 bunkers (the recent project removed some and added others so I don't know the count anymore).

For those of you who believe courses should have as few bunkers as possible, which bunkers at Merion would you remove?

Mike,

I understand the intent of your question but I don't think it is that simple to just name bunkers, most specifically at the greens. Simply saying a bunker can be removed doesn't address the aspect of what is left in terms of the movement in the terrain. Looked at another way a green open in the front may have some very interesting ground movement that works the ball into the proper pin area or diverts it away from the pin area into a less desireable part of the green. If the poor shot finds the ground and then is diverted into another part of the green they may be left with a very difficult putt. however, what is not considered is that their approach was not played right so now in effect they are left with a "recovery" shot, although they feel cheated because theymay argue they found the green they deserve a typical PGA Tour flat putt. However if those ground features are removed and a bunker is simply plopped there the same appraoch shot finds sand. In the previous scenario they had a long difficult putt, now they have a sand shot, both very challenging but very different skills are required to over come the same mistake, a poorly played approach. So I guess my point is if the bunker is removed some may say that makes the hole easier, however you have to consider what the condition of the terrain is after the bunker is removed, and as I hopefully described that can leave a very challenging recovery, even if the recovery is a putt. The key is the shaping of the terrain, and the green. It is much more controversial to put thought and strategy and challenge into the terrain, then it is to simply plop a bunker in and make a flat green.

News:

TEPaul

Tommy_Naccarato

Patrick_Mucci

Jimmy Muratt

Tommy_Naccarato

Phil_the_Author

wsmorrison

Eckstein

Kelly Blake Moran

TEPaul

BCrosby

Kelly Blake Moran

BCrosby

Michael Wharton-Palmer

TEPaul

Kelly Blake Moran

Jeff_Brauer

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

Jeff_Brauer

Mike_Cirba

JSlonis

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

Kelly Blake Moran