Big Bunkers Suck.......

« **on:** May 16, 2006, 02:26:09 PM »

....because they.....

--look stupid
--allow much easier and less interesting recovery shots than small bunkers
--look stupid

Compare and contrast.

« **Reply #1 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:29:03 PM »

I don't think so mister.

A big bunker (I assume we're talking wide here), allows for a long bunker shot, and what is harder than that. Its a bigger target, so it will worry more golfers than a small one they assume they won't go in anyway. Just a few quick thoughts.
Now if you add in depth and gathering ground around a bunker then the calculus becomes much more difficult.

« **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:31:50 PM »

Rich,

Does big mean broad? or does it also include deep?

On soft terrain, small bunkers get much less action than small bunkers on firm terrain. I am a proponent of "as firm as humanly possible", but that is not always a reality here in the NE USA.

I am going to go check the photos of Winged Foot West (and East) and will check back. If there are quality photos you may reconsider your first and third points about big bunkers.

« **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:40:07 PM »

... because they take too long to rake.

« **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:45:53 PM »

For golfers maybe, but not for men on tractors. Perhaps that's why you see larger bunkers rather than clusters of smaller bunkers that would be more aesthetically pleasing and bring more of a random element to the game.

TimT

Quote from: Dan Kelly on May 16, 2006, 02:40:07 PM

... because they take too long to rake.

« **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:52:06 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on May 16, 2006, 02:26:09 PM

....because they.....

--look stupid
--allow much easier and less interesting recovery shots than small bunkers
--look stupid

Compare and contrast.

....contrast...this recovery is easy and uninteresting?...as for
the look....that's personal preference as to if this looks stupid:

« **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:52:34 PM »

As in most matters relating to our favorite topic, the answer is site specific. The scale of the project dictates the size of the bunkers. As far as their appearance goes, good shaping is the difference regardless of bunker size.

« **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:55:21 PM »

Quote from: SL_Solow on May 16, 2006, 02:52:34 PM

As in most matters relating to our favorite topic, the answer
is site specific. The scale of the project dictates the size of
the bunkers. As far as their appearance goes, good shaping
is the difference regardless of bunker size.

That about sums up my feelings, too. I just wanted to give Rihc some 'contrastment'.

« **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:58:03 PM »

One of the longest running lies in humankind is "size doesn't matter".

The fact is, it does, and as Shelly points out, it comes down to scale, balance, form following function, and all of those other niceties of visual and spatial design.

Some of the greatest bunkers in the world also happen to be some of the very largest. Some of the greatest bunkers in the world also happen to be some of the very smallest.

Whatever fits, is the right answer.

« **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:07:58 PM »

I always like the challenge of avoiding/playing out of the meanest, deepest most sadistic bunker I can find.

Granted, I still wear my scars from Kiawah Island with frequent painful stinging reminders. (1st hole no less...)

Scott I LOVE that bunker!

« **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:14:12 PM »

Compare AND Contrast!

The ones I remember best are the smallest imaginable and the largest around - virtual sand dunes would be more like it. But when I say BIG....I'm probably thinking more like sandy waste-areas, that you don't have to rake

« **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:28:41 PM »

Rich, I read your post and thought immediately of Hell Bunker. Would the hole play better or worse if the bunker was much smaller?
My next thought was of #11 at Tobacco Road and the enormous bunker that guards the green. it just fits and gives the golfer just the right amount of pause (as well as as a fitting penalty for hubris unmatched by execution).

Did you happen to get yourself in a large bunker lately and have a hard time getting out or something?

« **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:30:50 PM »

at Blackwolf Run there are some monsters that look great due to the vast scale of the place

and that one at SH doesn't look bad either!

« **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:36:41 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on May 16, 2006, 02:26:09 PM

....because they.....

--look stupid
--allow much easier and less interesting recovery shots than small bunkers
--look stupid

Compare and contrast.

Would you classify the rear bunker on # 7 at NGLA,
the wrap around bunker at # 6, the fronting bunker on # 4 or the cross bunker on # 3 as "sucking" ?

Or, are they exempt ?

« **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:55:00 PM »

Andy

I give "Hell" a pass. I even give "Shell" or any other bunkers that rhyme with hell a pass. In fact I saw one of the finest golf shots I have ever seen this year when some French guy hit a 7-iron or whatever with a VERY restricted backswing out of Shell onto the 7th green during the Dunhill Cup after I decided to stop stalking Doak after seeing him make a mess of the tee shot to 11.......

Others

I disagree with Shel and ed that size matters, no matter what the topography. The "Getka" bunker at Sand Hills and the one to the left of the 6th at Pacific Dunes are mutants that scream out "bucket and spade!" rather than "golf."

As to topology. Deep is good, long is bad. Look at the pots that cover the bailout to the right of #3 and #5 at Dornoch. If Fazio or MacKenzie got a hold of that landscape they'd make those lovely little bunkers into ginormous expanses of sand that any idiot with a steady backswing could negotiate to the green. As they are now, only the most highly skilled and/or foolish would attempt such, which makes the two tee shots adventures in strategy rather than just a trip to the sandboxes d'antan.

« **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2006, 04:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on May 16, 2006, 03:55:00 PM

The "Getka" bunker at Sand Hills

From a famous GCA pic from long ago, he gets the moniker, but as an FYI, c'est moi in the pic above.

« **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2006, 04:36:38 PM »

Je m'excuse, Ecosset........

« **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2006, 04:37:54 PM »

...only when you hit into them, especially when your ball plugs!

« **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2006, 04:41:23 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 16, 2006, 03:36:41 PM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on May 16, 2006, 02:26:09 PM
....because they.....

--look stupid
--allow much easier and less interesting recovery shots than small bunkers
--look stupid

Compare and contrast.

Would you classify the rear bunker on # 7 at NGLA,
the wrap around bunker at # 6, the fronting bunker on # 4 or the cross bunker on # 3 as "sucking" ?

Or, are they exempt ?

Not exempt, Pat, just not big enough to concern me. If they were bigger they might possibly suck.

« **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2006, 04:50:23 PM »

Rich,

If you can go to San Francisco Golf Club and say that then to me there is no changing your mind.

Big bunkers are the hardest to do well because scale is the most difficult concept to learn in golf architecture. It may be purely intuitive and beyond the capablility of most architects, so when they try to do big bunkers they end with a colossal failure

It strikes me that small bunkers at an expansive setting like Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes would not have the same impact. Scale is an essential elemnet in certain sites.

« **Reply #20 on:** May 16, 2006, 05:37:40 PM »

Rich --

You say: "Big Bunkers Suck."

Do I correctly read you that you prefer small bunkers that suck -- literally?

Suck golf balls, that is.

And, yes, I did write that slightly differently, originally.

Dan

« **Reply #21 on:** May 16, 2006, 05:53:07 PM »

One's ideal's don't always match one's real life experiences. I've had a funny old last couple of years in the courses that I've experienced for the first time. Would never have expected to become an RTJ fan, but it seems to be happening, and I wouldn't have expected to enjoy Fazio's reworking at Sea Island, but I did. Huge bunkers, and not many of them, most all of them with tightly cropped borders. I thought that the consistency created a feeling of a grand scale and I was not averse to this. And certainly, however good one's lie, there are no gimme up and downs from 25 yards and more.
Let's not get into how they have completely ruined the vibe of the place in every other way..
I almost added my thoughts to the Wolf Run thread that I saw yesterday, but my thoughts seemed to be well enough represented. It is a fabulous course. One of the toughest I've ever played, and yet still fun. My only disappointment was the look of the bunkering. Lots of clusters of little ones. Overly busy, to my eye.

« **Reply #22 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:49:59 PM »

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on May 16, 2006, 05:53:07 PM

One's ideal's don't always match one's real life experiences.

Lloyd --

I believe that is a phenomenon known here as the "Raynor Paradox."

Or: the "MacWood Paradox" -- in honor of the man who coined the expression "Raynor Paradox."

In a sentence, it can be stated thus: Why do I like what I don't like?

Dan

« **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2006, 12:44:47 AM »

Rich,
There are no bunkers named after me at SH. There was a picture of me, compliments of Shoeless Paul Turner, on #14 SH posted a few years ago.
There is a feature named after me at Rustic Canyon however, it is Getka Gulch which is the wash to the right of #18 that I am slowly but surely filling in over time (to widen the fairway

). If the darn flooding would stop I would have been done by now.

« **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2006, 02:16:39 AM »

Quote from: Ian Andrew on May 16, 2006, 04:50:23 PM

Rich,

If you can go to San Francisco Golf Club and say that then to me there is no changing your mind.

Big bunkers are the hardest to do well because scale is the most difficult concept to learn in golf architecture. It may be purely intuitive and beyond the capablility of most architects, so when they try to do big bunkers they end with a colossal failure

It strikes me that small bunkers at an expansive setting like Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes would not have the same impact. Scale is an essential elemnet in certain sites.

Ian

I was at SFGC just 3 weeks ago, watching Tom Doak and his team doing their resoration thang to the 3 "lost" holes. I've also played the course 3 times and it is one of my favo(u)rites. However, it could be better with fewer and smaller bunkers, IMO.

I tend to think that restraint is more important than scale when dealing with expansive sites. The best golf courses are less "in your face" than in your mind.

Slainte

Rich

News:

ForkaB

ed_getka

JESII

Dan Kelly

Tim Taylor

Scott_Burroughs

SL_Solow

Scott_Burroughs

Mike_Cirba

Jay Flemma

Matt MacIver

Andy Hughes

PThomas

Patrick_Mucci

ForkaB

Scott_Burroughs

ForkaB

Phil_the_Author

ForkaB

Ian Andrew

Dan Kelly

Lloyd_Cole

Dan Kelly

ed_getka

ForkaB