How important are fairway bunkers?

« **on:** March 10, 2007, 09:48:01 AM »

I belong to a course where fairway bunkers come into play on only one hole. I've sometimes thought that this is a weakness of the course. On the other hand, one of my favorite courses, Yale, doesn't rely on fairway bunkers nor did Augusta in its architectural hayday. The other side of the coin is Oakmont, where the fairway bunkers are among the defining characteristicx of the course, as they are on many links courses.

Given the cost of maintaining fairway bunkers, how critical are they to creating architectural interest and encouraging strategy?

« **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2007, 10:33:57 AM »

Phil -

ANGC relied on many fw bunkers in its heyday. In fact, it once had several fw centerline bunkers.

I don't think you can generalize very productively about fw bunkers. So much depends on terrain, green bunkering and contours, etc.

It has struck me several times how disfavored they became since the GA. I know of several original Ross courses where he had designed 30 to 40 fw bunkers. Virtually all of them are now NLE.

My sense is that attitudes towards fw bunkers have changed over the last decade or so. That's a good development.

Bob

« **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2007, 11:11:00 AM »

I think it depends somewhat on what they're actually like, as well.

Fairway bunkers that actually are relatively penal, such as Oakmont's, or (I think) Aronimink's, can only be a good thing, imho, as they encourage thoughtful play. Fairway bunkers like the flat, lifeless ones on my home muni are largely a waste of space.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2007, 11:48:50 AM »

Phil,

Good question. I think that as rough has become more prevalent, fw bunkers are less important. Rough covers several acres per hole and fw bunkers cover a very small area. Odds are rough will affect play more.

Rough tends to be an equal opportunity punisher. So if your main goal is to "punish" a tee shot off the fw, rough is better.

The value of fw bunkers (or other hazards) is that you can place them where you want them to influence/create strategy for (usually) better players while not affecting bad shots by lesser players.

« **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2007, 11:53:14 AM »

Quote from: BCrosby on March 10, 2007, 10:33:57 AM

Phil -

ANGC relied on many fw bunkers in its heyday. In fact, it once had several fw centerline bunkers.

I've seen the pictures, such as the one with the big bunker in the middle of the 14th fairway. But in the era when Augusta moved into the public consciousness - the early '60's - there were virtually none as I recall. They added the left side bunkers to 18 in the late '60's and most of today's fairway bunkers are post-Tiger I think (eg on 1 and

. I don't really count the bunker on 10 since it doesn't come into play very often.

« **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2007, 12:19:42 PM »

My idea on fairway bunkers has always been fairly simple.

They should litter the ideal line of play for a hole, and eliminate or compromise options in taking advantage of that ideal line of play should you end up in one.

« **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2007, 01:41:43 PM »

Ive always thought of fairway bunkers being the 'not so glamorous' side of architecture, but as necessary as the green complex... Golf holes are designed from the green backwards again IMHO. And it shows for me, who are the good from the average architects. Scatttering dog legs with huge bunkering doesnt personally do it for me, i prefer the strategic pot or equivalent to suggest a horid position to the golfer.

« **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2007, 07:31:36 PM »

Phil,

In the context of contributing to the strategic design and play of the golf course, I'd say that they're very important.

The one caveat would be the underlying terrain

« **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2007, 07:45:51 PM »

Olympic does pretty well with just 1 fairway bunker, which is on #6.

« **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2007, 07:56:17 PM »

I like fairway bunkers. Yet I think there are other ways to make the tee shot interesting and demanding beside the use of sand or water. On heathland courses, heather makes one hit a straight ball. Gorse does the same thing. So does a well plaaced tree or even a waste area. I agree with Sean that hole after hole of fairway bunkers can be tedious and show a lack of creativity on the part of the architect or green committee.

« **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2007, 07:56:19 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on March 10, 2007, 11:48:50 AM

Rough tends to be an equal opportunity punisher. So if your main goal is to "punish" a tee shot off the fw, rough is better.

Hmm. Don't you think Jeff that that statement would be always true if the rough was always the same everywhere. Everywhere meaning on the same golf course. No matter where you hit it you'll get the same type of situation. I've never seen a golf course that's able to accomplish uniform rough everywhere. In fact, in tournament play, that furhter you hit off line it seems the better the lie because of galleries flattening the rough in those areas. I think if bunkers were thoughtfully built and placed, they would accomplish the task of punishing an errant tee shot, IMHO. It would seem to me the cost of maintaining a uniform rough that would be just for all would be more cost prohibitive, IMHO.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2007, 08:35:25 PM »

How important is any architectural feature? The answer depends. For example, Olympic's lone fairway bunker on #6 works fine for that layout and if you played there you'd see why. Interestingly, if you saw Willie Watson's original design plans for Olympic you would see dozens of fairway bunkers. In fact the one on #6 is not even his, it was put in by RT Jones.

The answer to this question is very involved. It could take a whole book to explain

« **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2007, 12:37:41 AM »

Fairway bunkers are less important today, at least for better players, because drives have a very different trajectory that leads to the best drives being mostly carry with very little roll compared to the lower trajectories and more run that used to characterize a good player's best drives in the past. You can only find a bunker while your ball is on the ground, so the less time it spends there the less chance there is of being in the bunker.

If fairway bunkers were designed with sand type/consistency and slopes calculated to increase the odds of a buried lie on the steeper descent of a long drive, it would be more of a hazard to better players and wouldn't hurt weaker players who are hitting the ball on a much shallower trajectory and thus wouldn't have to worry about buried lies in those fairway bunkers.

Imagine how much the pros would whine if they had to lay up out of a fairway bunker instead of hitting it nearly as close instead of being easier than playing out of the rough as is the case today!

« **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:30:09 PM »

Bill,
Your assessment of either worthless or invaluable can be correct but is also player to player dependent. What is strategic to one player, might be penal to another, or even non-existent to some and so on. Conditions of play also impact a fairway bunker's value, firmness of the ground, wind, rain, temperature,... Match play vs. medal play can also be a factor and the list goes on.

I remember watching the Bell South Classic played at Norman's TPC at Sugarloaf course. There was a fairway bunker that protected the corner of a dogleg (304 yards out according to my range finder). The one day the pros I was watching flew it with their tee balls like it wasn't even there. Appleby didn't even watch his ball land as it flew by. He just picked up his tee after hitting and started talking with his caddy. To him and his playing partners, that bunker was non-existent. It just helped define the agressive line of play. However, the value of that same bunker the next day dramatically changed as the wind came up and was no longer "non-existent". Many now had to reassess their options and shot shape to challenge the aggressive line of play.

For the rest of us, that bunker would take on different values as well.

« **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2007, 03:24:54 PM »

Quote from: Phil Benedict on March 10, 2007, 09:48:01 AM

Given the cost of maintaining fairway bunkers, how critical are they to creating architectural interest and encouraging strategy?

I'd say, as a general guideline, their importance for interest and strategy functions inversely to the quality of the green complex...

« **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2007, 09:34:08 PM »

Quote from: JES II on March 12, 2007, 03:24:54 PM

Quote from: Phil Benedict on March 10, 2007, 09:48:01 AM

Given the cost of maintaining fairway bunkers, how critical are they to creating architectural interest and encouraging strategy?

I'd say, as a general guideline, their importance for interest and strategy functions inversely to the quality of the green complex...

I strongly disagree with that.

Certainly the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 15th and 18th holes at NGLA have spectacular green complexes, yet, the importance, interest and strategic function of the fairway bunkers on those holes is vital to the genius of the architecture and the enjoyment and challenge associated with playing those holes.

To evaluate the relative merit of fairway bunkers solely by the configuration and/or quality of the green complex is to be short sighted at best.

JES II, I barely have time to tutor TEPaul and Mayday Malone, however, since you live close by, I'll make room for you.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2007, 09:52:17 PM »

Phil,
good thread, with good posts.

One thing I think fairway bunkers do is "set the tone" for the course, and for the round. In the case of a very good player, the effect might be mostly psychological, i.e. he/she won't find themselves in the bunkers very much, but the way the bunkers are placed and their frequency of use sends a message to the golfer that has an influence/impact: "this is a penal course, and a stern test, so you'd better have your A game", or, "this is a strategic course, with many available options, but you have to use your imagination, and make your own choices".

For the rest of us, they may be mostly directional, or "anti-directional," and whatever their pyschological effect it pales in comparison to the...err... actual, stroke-costing real ones.

Peter

« **Reply #17 on:** March 12, 2007, 09:55:14 PM »

I tend to be of the view that the best architecture is when the fewest number of hazards create the maximum interest. After playing Yale you don't walk away saying I wish they had more fairway bunkers. The same would be true of ANGC circa 1950-1965.

On the other hand, it seems like fairway bunkers (bunkers in general really) are used as something of a blunt instrument at Oakmont and maybe some other places that I am unfamiliar with or can't think of.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2007, 07:32:05 AM »

Quote from: Phil Benedict on March 12, 2007, 09:55:14 PM

I tend to be of the view that the best architecture is when the fewest number of hazards create the maximum interest. After playing Yale you don't walk away saying I wish they had more fairway bunkers. The same would be true of ANGC circa 1950-1965.

Phil,

That's unrealistic.

Holding out Yale and Augusta as average courses isn't fair.

Both enjoy UNIQUE, DRAMATIC topography.

And, that's a luxury few courses can reproduce.[/color]

On the other hand, it seems like fairway bunkers (bunkers in general really) are used as something of a blunt instrument at Oakmont and maybe some other places that I am unfamiliar with or can't think of.

WOW, that's some statement.
Rephrased: I don't recall or have the facts, but, I'm against the introduction of fairway bunkers on courses I'm unfamiliar with or cant think of. WOW, it's tough to argue that one [/color]

« **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2007, 09:57:52 AM »

So Pat,

Yale and Augusta can not be held out as average courses for the purpose of this discussion but NGLA can...they'll be so disappointed...remind me again, how is the topography out in Southampton?

Here's what I can tell you; if you rely on fairway bunkers to "create architectural interest and challenge" without first building/finding/designing (whatever the buzzword is today) a great set of greens, your course will not be as interesting or challenging to the full range of players it could be...now put that in your pipe and smoke it...

« **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2007, 10:58:27 AM »

The greatest piece of land in the world (arguably) to have a golf course put on it, CPC, has many, many bunkers. Does this take away from the course? Surely not. When one sees the surrounding area they fit in perfectly with the landscape. Having one of the best bunker artists in the world doesn't hurt either.

« **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2007, 10:59:14 AM »

Quote from: JES II on March 13, 2007, 09:57:52 AM

So Pat,

Yale and Augusta can not be held out as average courses for the purpose of this discussion but NGLA can...they'll be so disappointed...remind me again, how is the topography out in Southampton?

You have to learn to distinquish between the issues.
It's akin to seperating apples from oranges.

One relates to a theory that you've put forth stating the fairway bunkering is inversely relevant/material to the quality of the green complexes. An absurd theory if I ever heard one.

The other premise put forth by Phil argued that since ANGC and Yale don't have much in the way of fairway bunkering, than, neither should other courses.

Tell me that you understand the difference.

If not, GCA 102 classes will begin this Spring in Newton.[/color]

Here's what I can tell you; if you rely on fairway bunkers to "create architectural interest and challenge" without first building/finding/designing (whatever the buzzword is today) a great set of greens, your course will not be as interesting or challenging to the full range of players it could be...now put that in your pipe and smoke it...

That's not what you said in your prior post.

I"m glad that I was able to get you to see the error of your ways.

And, I would disagree with your revised statement.

Does Bethpage Black have a great set of greens ?

Rather, had you borrowed a phrase from your earlier post I think your revised post would have more merit.

I think you have to incorporate green complexes and not just the putting surfaces to produce the most interesting and challenging of courses.

And, speaking of courses, mine begins next Monday.
Please be on time, and, be prepared, as I only have one Dunce Cap, and that's usually reserved for TEPaul.[/color]

« **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2007, 11:33:54 AM »

Phil-

Do you know if Ross had more bunkers in his original plan for CCW? I have only the routing plan from B. Klein's book to go by and I don't imagine it shows the bunkering in any detail. I also wonder, since it was such an expensive project for the time, if those skin-flint yankees didn't downgrade the bunkering to save a few nickels.

Anyway, I cannot imagine where CCW would benefit from a fairway additional fairway bunkering with the possible exception of the right side of 15, to take away the short route. That might be a good substitute for the committee trees currently occupying the right rough in the drive landing area.

ONe fairway bunker I've always appreciated is on #15 at Oakland Hills. It's dead in the centrer of the fairway, creating four options- try to carry it, play sort, play safe to the right (to the outside of the dogleg), or gamble with a draw to the left side, shortening the hole and opening up the green. But the best thing is the shock value- it is the first look (and only) look of its kind on the course.

« **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2007, 12:16:52 PM »

Quote from Patrick Mucci:

"The other premise put forth by Phil argued that since ANGC and Yale don't have much in the way of fairway bunkering, than, neither should other courses."

I am not against fairway bunkers per se but it's interesting to me that certain great courses deploy them pretty sparingly whereas they are all over the place on other great courses (I keep using Oakmont as an example).

It's also a curiousity to me that my course (Waterbury) has only 1 hole (the sixth) where fairway bunkers come into play. I am not sure whether fairway bunkers would improve any particular hole but I wonder how Ross and associates arrived at the decision to have so few fairway bunkers. Was it cost? Who knows? Just a curiousity.

« **Reply #24 on:** March 13, 2007, 12:29:01 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on March 13, 2007, 11:07:54 AM

David

As much as I want to play CP, there are aspects of the bunkering which I find jarring - just too much going on. Below are two examples

Below is a look a like much more

Ciao

Sean, I can appreciate your point. If we all liked the same thing this would be one very boring site! However, I feel the bunkering fits the landscape there. The first photo you posted is amongst natural sandunes. I like what you posted as well of examples of what you liked. In both cases, I feel the bunkering works for the perspective immediate sites. And really, that's my point. It must work for the immediate site. The bunkering you see at CPC in the first photo obviously would not look natural if used in a place like Banff Springs. I think this is one key as to what seperates the great courses from the rest. Does it look like it's always been there, and does it provide the strategic element we all would like from golf courses.

News:

Phil Benedict

BCrosby

George Pazin

Jeff_Brauer

Phil Benedict

Kyle Harris

James Edwards

Patrick_Mucci

Michael Robin

Tommy Williamsen

David Stamm

Mark_Fine

Doug Siebert

Mark_Fine

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

Peter Pallotta

Phil Benedict

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

David Stamm

Patrick_Mucci

Jim Sweeney

Phil Benedict

David Stamm