[Patrick_Mucci]

Would an extended, serious drought, or a precipitous spike in the cost of water increase the number of bunkers in new and/or existing golf courses ?

Since "rough" would be a greatly diminished factor in the play of the golf course, would increased bunkering be "en vogue" ?

Is it possible that the reason so many classic courses had more bunkering was because irrigation wasn't yet a widespread art form, blanketing the golf course, wall to wall with H2O at the push of a button ?

[Peter Zarlengo]

I guess I'll take the first stab at this one. In my one year of growing in a golf course, the grasses surrounding the bunker edges required a ton of water to establish, it seemed like much more that the fairways, rough, or greens.

Maybe in the long run the bunkers would require less water, but in the push to get a course open, it seemed like the bunkers required as much or more attention in hand watering detail as other areas.

You might actually see less bunkering on courses if there was increased water costs as bunkers=labor, with labor costs decreasing to make room for more water in a maintenance budget.

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

I think AGNC (minimal and/or no rough, at least until recently during the Masters, and less than 30(?) bunkers on the entire course) would be the best example of a course that counters your premise.  

Of course, AGNC is built on terrain that has a lot of "character," with plenty of slopes and elevation changes, both in the fairways and on the greens. That allows the course to retain its interest and challenge with a minimum of either rough or bunkers.

If AGNC had been built on a much flatter site, would it likely have had more bunkers and/or rough?  

DT

[Craig Sweet]

Old courses with more bunkering? It's the "TOC" syndrome...not to be confused with the ANGC syndrome....

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

On Flat land, I think more bunkers would be necessary to reproduce the intended strategy, assuming a similar routing.

The severity of the land combined with the existance/use of water hazards diminishes the need for bunkers at ANGC

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It's an excellent question how the quantity of bunkering was looked at in the old days and probably a question that is impossible to answer with any kind of general accuracy.

I think we can find some pretty good evidence that some (both golfers and architects) felt the greater the amount of bunkers on a course the higher the quality of the golf course. This perception was probably something like the way architects and others used to brag (and still do) about the expense of a golf course being a determining factor for the quality of a course and its architecture.

But that wasn't universal---eg ANGC had only 22 original bunkers and an architect like Flynn basically looked at bunkering as an architectural supplement for otherwise flat and/or uninteresting natural ground. If he had hole sites and hole landforms that were naturally interesting, particularly topographically, he tended to go light on bunkering. If he had flat, bland and featureless hole sites he tended to go heavy on bunkering, particularly large scale sand areas.

Perhaps the most interesting philosophy on bunkering was George Thomas'. He felt half strokes for putts would allow architects to build far more holes in the half-par range and consequently allow them to use less bunkering for strategic purposes and thereby cut construction and maintenance costs on bunkers bigtime and make golf generally more affordable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you look at old aerials of Shinnecock, Pine Valley, CPC and Hollywood, the theme appears clear, bunkers are in abundance in both number and size and as influences on play.

Over the years they've been reduced, in numbers and size and as influences on play.

Could that reduction be correlated to the introduction of irrigation systems and the advent of meaningful rough ?

[Craig Sweet]

Maybe they figured out that bunkers cost more to maintain than fairways?

Besides, it's the St. Andrews syndrome....not to be confused with the ANGC "green is beautiful" syndrome.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
I don't have an answer for you, but only a question (below). You've approached your question from 'both ends' as it were,  which is fine and makes sense. Initially you asked:

"Since "rough" [given a water shortage] would be a greatly diminished factor in the play of the golf course, would increased bunkering be "en vogue" ?

And then, in post #6 you asked it the other way around:

"Over the years they've [i.e bunkers] been reduced, in numbers and size and as influences on play. Could that reduction be correlated to the introduction of irrigation systems and the advent of meaningful rough"?

In both instances you seem to imply/assume a commonality between bunkers and rough (in terms of design/strategic intent); and also a necessary and inverse relationship between the two, i.e. if more of one, then less of the other.

My question is, can we make that correlation? Is it a flawed assumption to begin with? Is there any evidence that past designers saw the two as strategically interchangeable? Isn't it possible that bunkers have generally been reduced in number and size over the years simply because their lack of strategic significance became evident?

Hope these questions are at least relevant. Thanks
Peter      

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick
I don't have an answer for you, but only a question (below). You've approached your question from 'both ends' as it were,  which is fine and makes sense. Initially you asked:

"Since "rough" [given a water shortage] would be a greatly diminished factor in the play of the golf course, would increased bunkering be "en vogue" ?

And then, in post #6 you asked it the other way around:

"Over the years they've [i.e bunkers] been reduced, in numbers and size and as influences on play. Could that reduction be correlated to the introduction of irrigation systems and the advent of meaningful rough"?

In both instances you seem to imply/assume a commonality between bunkers and rough (in terms of design/strategic intent); and also a necessary and inverse relationship between the two, i.e. if more of one, then less of the other.

My question is, can we make that correlation?

That's the question asked in the initial post.

I think a case can be made that irrigated rough replaced the need for extensive bunkering.[/color]

Is it a flawed assumption to begin with?

It's not an assumption, it's a query.[/color]

Is there any evidence that past designers saw the two as strategically interchangeable ?

How could the designers of the past see that when there was no lush, dense, tall rough ?  The feature didn't exist.[/color]

Isn't it possible that bunkers have generally been reduced in number and size over the years simply because their lack of strategic significance became evident ?

For whom ?

I don't believe any bunker becomes irrelevant for the entire spectrum of golfers who play the golf course.  Hence, I refute that position.  How would a bunker lack strategic significance ?  How would it lack strategic significance for every level of golfer ?  And, who would make that determination ?

I think bunkers were removed for some of the following reasons:

Cost to maintain
Objection to maintain.
Dislike on the part of the power/s in charge
Personal agendas
Amateur architects within the membership
Keeping up with the Jones's syndrome.
Rough served a similar purpose.[/color]
 

Hope these questions are at least relevant. Thanks
Peter    

Peter, I think they're very relevant.[/color]
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat — I miss responding to your threads. This is among your most lean writings in several months!  

A typical course only has 1-2 acres of bunkers. Of course, some have more area...and some less.

I think the key is broken ground. Here in the Sonoran Desert we may have 55 acres of turf and the balance made up of native areas...native grasses...drought tolerant plantings.

Most assuridly, if water is a problem the areas of non-turf might increase. But play and strategy is all a part of that decision.

The key is finding appropriate water sources. In dryyyyyyyyy Mexico we use treated water from the sewer system.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
thanks - I better understand your question now, and some of the nuance. And you made a point that gave me a thought about a possible answer to your original question. You wrote:

"I don't believe any bunker becomes irrelevant for the entire spectrum of golfers who play the golf course....[...]...How would it lack strategic significance for every level of golfer?"

I think that's a very good point, Patrick, and I think it does refute the theory that bunkers had been eliminated for that reason. But then wouldn't the reverse be true in the case of some future water shortage?

What I mean is, while no individual bunker can be strategically insignificant for the entire spectrum of golfer, likewise no individual bunker can be strategically significant to the entire spectrum of golfer. In other words, if strategic significance across the entire spectrum is the goal, there'd have to be a massive increase in the number of bunkers required to achieve that, and to off-set the loss of rough.

It seems to me that rough works admirably well (and fairly democratically) as a strategic element for the entire spectrum of golfer. The number of bunkers needed to "replace" that element would be large indeed. So:

In a time of water shortages, could an increase in bunkering become "en vogue"? My working theory/answer is "no", Patrick: the cost of building and maintaining the number of bunkers necessary to adequately replace the then-missing rough would soon become evident, and be found to be prohibitive.

Instead, maybe then we might get instead a truly bunkerless and roughless course....a purely strategic test!

What do you think? Does that theory hold water?
Thanks

Peter        

[David Lott]

Are there historical sources available to answer this question other than surmise and inference? Tom Naccarato has a post on bunkering at the In My Opinion section of this site that gives a tease. He quotes J.H. Taylor at length about bunkering, and all of Taylor's thoughts go to issues of fashion and shot values, not water. There must be many other sources, some more directly evidential than this.

My sense is that the classic courses used extensive bunkering for reasons unrelated to water issues. Many of these courses did not have the trees they have today (even after recent tree removal) and the sand was necessary to give visual shape to the holes. It was also a big factor in the overall aesthetic of the course, in the low tree era when much of the course was visible from various standpoints. Plus this was a time when maintenance was less obsessive. Old photos prove that, as do the instructional books of the time, which favor long irons off the turf in all but the best of lies.

This is a different question, though, than whether tightening the water spigot on contemporary courses would result in more sand because of less fearsome rough. It probably would, and the grooming of the sand might get less persnickity. Then again, maybe not--they would just do like Augusta and make the speed of the greens (and maybe the fairways) inappropriate to the slope of the land. This for the pros, anyway. For the members, who knows, as most members would have a stroke (cardiovascular variety) at the type of course conditions that obtained in the classic era.

Interesting questions.

[David Lott]

Forgotten architect hero Bill Diddel built a course in Indiana without sand bunkers. He is quoted as having said it was his favorite course. Diddel lived near the course and played it a lot. It's said he decided to design the course this way because the construction and maintenance budgets were very low. Since he could have only a few bunkers, he went for none at all.

The course is long gone now, as is Bill.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick
thanks - I better understand your question now, and some of the nuance. And you made a point that gave me a thought about a possible answer to your original question. You wrote:

"I don't believe any bunker becomes irrelevant for the entire spectrum of golfers who play the golf course....[...]...How would it lack strategic significance for every level of golfer?"

I think that's a very good point, Patrick, and I think it does refute the theory that bunkers had been eliminated for that reason. But then wouldn't the reverse be true in the case of some future water shortage?

What I mean is, while no individual bunker can be strategically insignificant for the entire spectrum of golfer, likewise no individual bunker can be strategically significant to the entire spectrum of golfer.

I wouldn't agree with that when it comes to greenside bunkers.

With respect to fairway bunkering a lot would depend upon the various tee locations, provided that the golfers were playing from tees commensurate with their ability.[/color]

In other words, if strategic significance across the entire spectrum is the goal, there'd have to be a massive increase in the number of bunkers required to achieve that, and to off-set the loss of rough.

I don't believe that either.
I don't think that universal bunkering is required.
But, I do think that abundant bunker, as evidenced by some of the courses I mentioned, is desired.[/color]

It seems to me that rough works admirably well (and fairly democratically) as a strategic element for the entire spectrum of golfer.

Only if it's effective rough.
Absent water it loses its effectiveness.
Ergo, bunkers.

The number of bunkers needed to "replace" that element would be large indeed.

Not really.
You can't view the issue in the context of accounting for EVERY possible golf shot.  I think there's a reasonable, identifiable range of shots that should be considered.

In addition, you have to weigh their relative values.
Rough at 4.5 inches, lush, dense and well irrigated doesn't have the same influence over play and strategy when the water is eliminated for 4 months.

Bunkers retain their strategic value irrespective of the availability of water.

So:

In a time of water shortages, could an increase in bunkering become "en vogue"? My working theory/answer is "no",

Your argument is flawed because you haven't differentiated between a prolonged serious drought and a water shortage.
This issue wasn't contexted in a temporary environment, rather, in an ongoing or perpetual environment.


Patrick: the cost of building and maintaining the number of bunkers necessary to adequately replace the then-missing rough would soon become evident, and be found to be prohibitive.

I'd disagree.
I'd cite the courses I referenced as evidence of the ability to create and maintain bunkers that would serve as strategic factors in the play of the golf course.

The cost of bunker maintainance has to do with the culture of grooming.  Most people confuse the two issues or don't understand the difference.

If Pine Valley, Friar's Head or other clubs groom their bunkers once a month, how costly can it be ?

If another club grooms their bunkers every day, that will be costly.

So, the answer lies in the culture, not in the process.[/color]

Instead, maybe then we might get instead a truly bunkerless and roughless course....a purely strategic test!

While I think that's possible, unless you had a very unique property, I don't see it happening.[/color]

What do you think? Does that theory hold water?

I don't think so.
Picture a golf course, limited to watering tees and greens daily, with very little water allowed on fairways and almost none in the rough.
Think about playing that golf course.
Think about a ball hit in the rough, running ..... forever.
Something is missing.
A bunker to capture and confine that ball.[/color]      

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Lott,

I'll address your questions later, I have to go out now.

But, with respect to your theory on increasing green speeds to high stimp levels, I don't see that happening in a drought, unless you want to lose them.

[David Lott]

Patrick--I agree about the stimp levels. My comment was just a cheap shot at the tendency to "protect" par by making greens too fast for their slope. Your question is a serious one, as the time may come in some parts of the country at least when the lavish amount of water now available is restricted. This might even bring back the two and three iron.

I played a nice courses as a kid that only watered the greens. It was kind of fun, because in damp times the holes were very different than in dry, and that made the golf more interesting. I don't think I have enough game now for very dry conditions--it magnifies the errors and I make more and more errors nowadays. But every once in a while I could brag about how far I hit this drive!

[Andrew Summerell]

Patrick, if your theory is true, is a drought a minimalists worst nightmare ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, if your theory is true, is a drought a minimalists worst nightmare ?

Not at all.

[Andrew Summerell]

Since "rough" would be a greatly diminished factor in the play of the golf course, would increased bunkering be "en vogue" ?

One other aspect to consider is the use of different grasses.

In Sydney, Kikuyu thrives. Even through drought, a reasonable rough of about an inch or more can be achieved with Kikuyu.

Now, in saying this, it's one of my least prefered grasses, but it is particularly tough.

Apart from that, I would think you would see more water hazards to take advantage of what little rain fell or to have a storage place for any grey water the club can purchase, before you saw more bunkers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew,

A club can have all the water retention ponds it wants, and all the wells it want's, but, it won't do them any good.

When water restrictions are invoked, especially in severe droughts, it's the use that's prohibited, irrespective of the local availability.

I doubt that Kikuyu would survive in the Northeast.

[Andrew Summerell]

When water restrictions are invoked, especially in severe droughts, it's the use that's prohibited, irrespective of the local availability.

I don't understand why a course would not be allow to use its own water. We are in all sorts of different levels of water restriction throughout New South Wales, some quite severe, but courses with their own water (i.e. runoff lake) are not restricted in using it.

One of the courses I'm a member of services 27 holes with a huge lake at the back of the property. The courses that don't have the room for water storage are the ones that suffer here in Australia.


BTW, I happy to hear that Kikuyu would not survive the north east. It is one of the worst weeds on the planet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When water restrictions are invoked, especially in severe droughts, it's the use that's prohibited, irrespective of the local availability.

I don't understand why a course would not be allow to use its own water. We are in all sorts of different levels of water restriction throughout New South Wales, some quite severe, but courses with their own water (i.e. runoff lake) are not restricted in using it.

It doesn't matter how much water a club has at its disposal, when severe drought restrictions are invoked, NO WATER can be applied beyond the limits of the mandate, internally or externally.   Everything is metered.  You own ponds, lakes, streams, etc., etc..

Years ago, during drought restrictions I came up with the idea of taking the water generated by a club's air conditioning system and recyling it back for use in the irrigation system.
I was told that it didn't matter since the application of the water was metered.  I then suggested that it be fed into retention ponds for use when the restrictions were eased. [/color]

One of the courses I'm a member of services 27 holes with a huge lake at the back of the property. The courses that don't have the room for water storage are the ones that suffer here in Australia.

Things are different here.
It wouldn't matter how amply the club's internal reserves are, they can't USE anything beyond what's been dictated.
And, as I've said, everything is metered.[/color]

BTW, I happy to hear that Kikuyu would not survive the north east. It is one of the worst weeds on the planet.

I was always surprised that a number of California golf courses didn't attempt to eradicate the Kikuyu decades ago, and why they kept it as their playing surface.

Perhaps some familiar with the situation in California can shed some light on the issue.[/color]

[Andrew Summerell]

It doesn't matter how much water a club has at its disposal, when severe drought restrictions are invoked, NO WATER can be applied beyond the limits of the mandate, internally or externally.   Everything is metered.  You own ponds, lakes, streams, etc., etc..
 [/color]

Thanks for that, Patrick. It's interesting to know. That rule would kill alot of Australian golf courses.

[Bryan Izatt]

It doesn't matter how much water a club has at its disposal, when severe drought restrictions are invoked, NO WATER can be applied beyond the limits of the mandate, internally or externally.   Everything is metered.  You own ponds, lakes, streams, etc., etc..
 [/color]

Where are you talking about, Patrick?  Are the restrictions applied at the municipal, county, or state level?  Who polices the restrictions?  Are there really meters, that are monitored, on every pumping station on every course?

In my area, watering restrictions are applied at the municipal level.  I believe they only apply to water drawn from the municipal supply.  I don't believe they apply to golf courses.

Perhaps your situation is not universal.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()