[Bryan Izatt]

Not to be confused with bunker walls.  I played a new course by Jason Straka of Hurdzan/Fry.  It is the Club at Bond Head - North Course.  A parkland style built on a very hilly site.

There are two holes on the front nine that have been designed to play staight up a 90 to 100 foot hill.  A really, really big hill.  In both cases the hill side is littered with bunkers.  The perception off the tee is that you're hitting into a wall of bunkers.  Pictures of the 2nd and 6th are below.  On the second, it is a 230 yard carry over the wetland area, before you hit the wall.  On the sixth, the wall is more immediate - a 250 yard drive hits the wall at about 200 yards; there's no roll.





The second shots on these par 4's are blind uphill shots to whatever is beyond skyline greens.  The picture below is the second shot on the 2nd, from the right side.



I have never seen holes like these.  Are they relatively unique?  Are they good architecture?  They were certainly interesting the first time around, but I suspect they may pale after a few plays.

As a second question; is it possible to have too much architecture, too many features, too much design in a course.  The North Course has many, many features - the aforementioned uphill holes; blind shots; false fronts and backs; ridges and tiers and undulations in the greens; perched greens; 15 foot deep grass bunkers; closely mown chipping areas; centre-line bunkers; a Redan-like hole; push-up greens; scalloped bunkers; drop shot par 3's; forced carries; fescue rough; and on and on.  I was worn out by the architecture at the end.

Lastly, in which ODG's style are these bunkers?  Or are they unique?  There are many, many of them; all in the same style.  They look like they will be hard and expensive to maintain.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

 – this one looks as though it has a little too much « make up » for my taste.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Brian this 'feature' provides the signature hole at Chart Hills a Faldo/ Smyers design.  From the tee the faiway is hidden and offf to the right, so the first time you play it it's a very intimidating hole.

I can't copy accross, but on the link below it's hole 14 and you get an idea of it from one of the scrolling pictures at the top of the page, the one with the Clubhouse in it.

http://www.charthills.co.uk/golf/back9.asp

[Bryan Izatt]

Tony,

Looks similar from what I can see in the picture.  What kind of elevation change is it?  I take it that the wall of bunkers is on the second shot, not off the tee.  In any event, I guess Straka was not unique in this design.  Wonder if there are others out there?

[Tony_Muldoon]

We do have a Chart Hills member here who hopefully will chip in.  

It was a few years ago and I got a surprise early Hay Fever attack which meant that I played the back nine half blind.   It's very well done, as the line of charm leads the eyes straight to the pin and the bunkers definitely look in reach. The first of our group asked what do we do here, just hit it and hope to miss all the bunkers?  You actually have to force yourself to play away from them and out to the right where there is more room.  The second shot then flirts with them and you only have to carry a couple. I'd guess the elevation to be about 60-80'.  Looking at the plan I wonder if you could lay up and then hit a longer second shot directly over them, but it didn’t seem an attractive option at the time.

[James Edwards]

Are you referring to me Tony    YES, I am indeed the Member..

The elevation change at 14  is not overly significant (not in comparison with those shown by Bryan)... The Tee is high up and plays down into a low area, umbelievably where the stream is, and then plays back up - maybe a rise of 15 metres/ 45ft.

16 is the signature hole, and thats a definate rise from fairway to green, maybe double that of 14 and has about 30 bunkers... (which i used to maintain!!) so sand is definately the dominating/intimidating factor.

9 also has a sea of bunkers up the left on an uphill approach to the green, but this is a short par 4 and are well positioned as they will catch the bold drive and do  act as a massive deterent on the approach with a SW, when the greenside bunker is v.v deep!

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks for the memory prompt James.  Yes it is 16 in all the photos.  14 is a nice par 4 where you have to decide whether to take on the stream or not.  16 is a par 5 where the bunkers are arranged so they look like a continuous wall across the hill.  I was right you do hit out the right with your tee shot but unless you are going to try in two the fairway offers you a sort of mini zig zag to the destination. The distances are all well disguised. Good holes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

Hey, it all looks good to me.

I suspect that these bunkers somewhat emulate Thomas and MacKenzie. Lots of us are doing these type of bunkers recently, and if these were done by C and C (and they are similar in style) this board would drool over them like they were some kind of sacred cow (oops, wrong thread) and say maintenance cost be damned! By HF, they start out as copies, too expensive, etc.  Sorry, I couldn't help but point that out!

The top hole has center bunkers and lots of options.  The right fairway could be a bit safer than it is, IMHO, and I question the steep bank cutting across the fw and the short right bunker that seems like a top shot bunker.  The little pad of fw just ahead and just beyond the shelf and short of the "spectacle bunkers" just don't look like viable options compared to the left and right fw's.  

And, if they were worried about maintenance costs, taking out the wide center areas that aren't options would reduce turf by an acreage on this hole by about 10-12% which would yield savings.  The top side of the bunkers appear to be fescues which, if not overwatered by the irrigation system, shouldn't require daily maintenance.  Having part circle heads above the bunkers, or proper spacing of full heads to not apply water here is a key to making this design work.

As to the wall of bunkers, I like it - if a shot is blind it defines the edges of the target areas for the golfers. And it its uphill by virture of a golfer declining a risk on the tee shot, then if it scares the bejeezez out of them, its just reward.  

While they are probably seeking a consistent style, if they had three or more of these design situations, I agree they might have made the choice to make one of them a big sand area, one a grass bunker, or whatever. At Devils Pulpit, they put a sod wall bunker at least 20 feet deep in the middle of a par 5 fw, and I remember that one to this day!

[Ted Kramer]

I like uphill shots.
I think the holes look really cool.
Looks like a fun place to play.

-Ted

[Adam Clayman]

Likes:
The cragginess of the bunker shapes reminds me of the old pictures in the Riviera clubhouse of some of Bell's work.

The fortress aspect of the "wall".

Dislikes:
The rough grass on the tee side of the fairway bunkers and on the green's side of the greenside bunkers.

All in all, a step in the right direction away from the standard clean edge look.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I suspect that these bunkers somewhat emulate Thomas and MacKenzie. Lots of us are doing these type of bunkers recently, and if these were done by C and C (and they are similar in style) this board would drool over them like they were some kind of sacred cow (oops, wrong thread) and say maintenance cost be damned! By HF, they start out as copies, too expensive, etc.  Sorry, I couldn't help but point that out!

While I understand what you're saying, Jeff, I have to disagree with you're assessment of their appearance. If I was told C&C did these, I'd be shocked. The rounded depressions that surround each of the rough-edged bunker shapes, look like just one more set of abstract-arty contrivances to me. They should have just gone with the amoeba-shaped ones - most golfers would find them more 'natural'-looking, because hey, isn't that the way golf course bunkers look in the wild?  

[Adam_F_Collins]

I want to point out also that I have no major bias on bunker shapes. I just feel that if you're going for 'natural' get it right. If you're not, don't bother and go amoeba - in between just amplifies the fact that they're manmade.

[Adam Clayman]

I want to point out also that I have no major bias on bunker shapes. I just feel that if you're going for 'natural' get it right. If you're not, don't bother and go amoeba - in between just amplifies the fact that they're manmade.

Adam,

Are you saying these are not right?

Could you elaborate on what you consider wrong with these shapes?

I suppose I'm goo gooing all over them and they weren't built by C&C.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Hey, it all looks good to me.

I suspect that these bunkers somewhat emulate Thomas and MacKenzie. Lots of us are doing these type of bunkers recently, and if these were done by C and C (and they are similar in style) this board would drool over them like they were some kind of sacred cow (oops, wrong thread) and say maintenance cost be damned! By HF, they start out as copies, too expensive, etc.  Sorry, I couldn't help but point that out!

The starter (who's father is president of the local Stanley Thompson Society) claimed they were MacKenzie-like bunkers.  Did he really have so many frilly little indentations?  They look very unnatural to me, regardless of the creator.

The top hole has center bunkers and lots of options.  The right fairway could be a bit safer than it is, IMHO, and I question the steep bank cutting across the fw and the short right bunker that seems like a top shot bunker.  The little pad of fw just ahead and just beyond the shelf and short of the "spectacle bunkers" just don't look like viable options compared to the left and right fw's.

The left fairway is not really an option (for mere mortals).  It's a 270 carry (from the 6500 yard tee set) over the wetlands to the left fairway. The right hand fairway gives you the dramtically uphill second pictured, to a green that is shallow from that direction.  This hole is a real slap in the face for a second hole.  Many will be lucky to carry the wetlands let alone consider the options.  

And, if they were worried about maintenance costs, taking out the wide center areas that aren't options would reduce turf by an acreage on this hole by about 10-12% which would yield savings.  The top side of the bunkers appear to be fescues which, if not overwatered by the irrigation system, shouldn't require daily maintenance.  Having part circle heads above the bunkers, or proper spacing of full heads to not apply water here is a key to making this design work.

As to the wall of bunkers, I like it - if a shot is blind it defines the edges of the target areas for the golfers. And it its uphill by virture of a golfer declining a risk on the tee shot, then if it scares the bejeezez out of them, its just reward.

It was a fun hole to play, and probably for a few more times.  After that I suspect it would frustrate most because of lack of real options and difficulty so early in the round.  And, it would be a bear into any kind of wind (fortunately it's not into the prevailing wind)

While they are probably seeking a consistent style, if they had three or more of these design situations, I agree they might have made the choice to make one of them a big sand area, one a grass bunker, or whatever. At Devils Pulpit, they put a sod wall bunker at least 20 feet deep in the middle of a par 5 fw, and I remember that one to this day!

[Adam_F_Collins]

I want to point out also that I have no major bias on bunker shapes. I just feel that if you're going for 'natural' get it right. If you're not, don't bother and go amoeba - in between just amplifies the fact that they're manmade.

Adam,

Are you saying these are not right?

Could you elaborate on what you consider wrong with these shapes?

I suppose I'm goo gooing all over them and they weren't built by C&C.

 

Adam,

It's not just the shapes of the sand areas, but the shapes of the depressions they lie within. They are of uniform depth, and the sanded areas lie in uniform positions within them, making them look too much the same from one to the next. The "walls" of each bunker is a similar height. The rounded edges of the depressions are uniform, and the grass is neatly trimmed and perfect.

It's a totally abstract form, with a nod to nature in the (uniformly) ragged edges. Strangely, this makes them look even more 'fake' to me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

Well, we can debate whether the bunkers are part of the MacKenzie shcool of architecture, but there is NO question  you have learned from the Pat Mucci school of posting......

May I ask how you insert the colored responses between the quotes? I have never figured that out.

Your first post implied a 230 yard carry. If its 270 from the middle tees, I would agree that its not a viable option, and thus, a waste or real estate. 270 from the backs is about right these days.  If it really has no options, and burns up all that real estate, it will get redesigned someday, IMHO.  

As to round position, you have to take what the land gives, and some courses just hit you in the face at different spots, including a few that have the No. 1 handicap hole as No. 1.  For that matter, at Devils Pulpit HF had a very difficult tee shot on No. 1, so maybe they like "getting you into the round early".  

As you know, there are restrictions on wetland alterations, so if the site has a wetland, it was probably a wise choice to at least let the golfer negotiate it with the ball on a tee, rather than use it as a green hazard.

Where is the course? It looks like a Wisconsin dairy farm, in which case it has no natural sand blow outs, so the bunkers are unnatural as they were for the good doctor at Augusta, Pasa, and most other courses he designed (Melbourne and CP excepted) You may not like them, but they are part of the largest contingent of bunkers around - man made bunkers that are artistic abstracts of old sheep hollows in Scotland - but "improved" visually to fit the eye.  Just how good they are, or which gca has the most artistic bunkers is an interesting subject, perhaps one for a separate thread.

[Brian_Ewen]

Am I the only one that feels seasick looking at these ?.  

[Tom_Doak]

I can't really tell enough about the distances and slopes on the two holes to comment on those.

However, the third picture shows that from the fairway you are looking way up to a gently moving horizon line where the green is, and far below the horizon are all those smaller, jiggedy bunker shapes.  That looks silly to me.  If you aren't going to take the bunker lines up on some of the slopes, or if the slopes are just too big and steep, don't bother with the jagged lines.  Seth Raynor's style would work better in that instance.

[Adam_F_Collins]

To attempt to illustrate my comments:

Here is a detail of the first image:



And they look a bit uniform in many respects. So what if we vary the amount the flash up the slopes here and there just a bit and break up the expanses just a hair. Is it closer to "natural"?



OR we could just embrace the "unnatural" or "abstract art of bunkers" and just go with the flow...



Do either the second or third image look better?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom's post got me to looking at the photo again about the distances.  If the left is all but out of play for mere mortals, as Bryan suggests, then the shelf across the middle fairway makes a bit more sense.

In essence, there is one truly heroic option to the upper left - they are asking for mega distance here to get the best angle.

There are two center options, long and short, but you have to decide which one you are going for or risk being on the steep bank.  They are asking for distance combined with control to see some of the green and have a frontal opening, which I think is kind of cool.

To the far right, you can hit the ball as far as you want, but must come over the bunkers with an uphill shot - No particular distance control required, but the most difficult second.

That makes me think that the bunkers may have been influenced style wise by the good Doc, but also placement wise - as in a concept very similar to his Lido hole entry.

[Adam Clayman]

AFC-you illustrate your point very well and I'd agree the cragginess is hardly worth the effort because of the scooped out wells. However, as I said before, it is a step in the right direction for the talented team.

I sure hope the elephant in the romm is that we are all just basing our opinions on the images, and not the golf hole.
Who has played the hole and comment on how the mind's eye views these shapes when over the shot?

[Troy Alderson]

IMHO, the reason the bunkers do not look natural is the white sand and green turf.  Where in the world do white sand bunkers occur naturally?  Enlighten me please.  Too much effort was put into constructing the bunkers to look "natural" and the white sand just does not fit.

Troy

[Adam Clayman]

Thats an assumption that the cragginess is made to make it look natural. Right?

Isn't it just as plauseable that the craggy effect affects the mind differently than the smooth?

[Ian Andrew]

I have also played the course.

The left is not out of play, but it is a long carry. I thought it was 240 not 270. If you play a tee up like the rest of us mortals it is even more manageable! The 2nd hole is full of options with the carry lengthening as you go left, but the view and angle improves too. I can't see where this hole can be criticised on it's options nor it's strategies. It plays well and will with multiple playings.

The 7th is far more severe than the 2nd, I don't recall another hole that I can compare it to.

[Bryan Izatt]

For the bunker aficianados, here's a detail picture of a greenside bunker on the 8th.  The bunkering style is consistent; every one looks like this.  The lips are sharp but only a few inches high.  They are all in grassed depressions, although the depressions vary greatly in depth and steepness.

After I had seen a hundred or more over 18 holes I thought the shaping of the edges was overly fussy.  

In my mind's eye when I was playing (only once) they were very noticeable because of their number, position, shape and whiteness, and therefore drew my attention to them inordinately.  Perhaps that's the design intent.  To distract.  IIRC I was only in one all day, although I was in the grassy slopes a few more times.  Recovery from the slopes was not bad.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()