It's been mentioned before but if golf course architecture is ever going to venture into a new realm of real naturalism, particularly specific "site naturalism" the art form is just going to have to reconsider the appropriateness of sand bunkering on particular sites.

My sense is where some kind of sand soil exists naturally sand bunkering is appropriate, and where sand soil or sand deposits of some kind just aren't naturally existing on sites or in the general vicinity alternatives to sand bunker hazards should be considered.

At some point this Gordian Knot should be broken that seems to dictate and demand that all golf courses everywhere must have sand bunkering to be legitimate golf courses.

The alternative hazard features to sand bunkering are frankly pretty numerous and equally effective in play to sand bunkering.

I couldn't help but notice and appreciate that Harry Colt's constant instruction in his hole-by-hole booklet for his bunkering for the holes of Pine Valley was "Tear away turf".

Is is any wonder he said that for that course and that particular site? You do that at a site like Pine Valley's was pre-golf course and what do you have but a rugged looking sand bunker because the entire ground of Pine Valley pre-existing the golf course was basically sand and sandy soil.

In my opinion, for golf architecture to ever go to or get to the next level of naturalism golf architects have just got to rethink the appropriateness of sand bunkering on sites that have absolutely no natural sand.

We have a pretty good group of practicing professional architects on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. I'll ask them for starters to please tell us all honestly, if they feel it, why they feel they cannot and should not do golf architecture with no sand bunkering on a site that has no evidence of sand on the prexisting site or in the immediate vicinity.

For the architects on here who may consider answering this question I should tell you I asked it of perhaps my favorite architect, Bill Coore, a year or two ago and what he said to me is this:

"Tommy, I consider sand bunkering to be in the top three or so most important aspects of all golf architecture."

What I did not ask him is why he felt that way?

Do you, and if you do, why? I hope I'm not going to hear it's only because that's what golfers have come to expect or even demand. If that's all it is, where is the leadership, particularly if one really wants to consider what naturalism really does mean?

This is a very interesting topic. I agree with the idea, I think its brilliant and there are sites where this could be achieved. But I don't think it could ever be successfully on lets say, a piece of rolling farmland.

I would love to see someone do this in the desert. It would probably be the easiest of sites to pull off a successful naturalistic course if we will just ignore the odyssey of turf grass in the desert. Just being creative with the grassing lines and incorporating centerline desert hazards (kind of like what Forrest did at Las Palomas) would provide an interesting enough natural hazard to not bore everyone to death.  


It can probably be done, but only on an interesting enough site with some very talented and creative minds.

I think a lot of the time sand gives crappy golfers a second chance on a hole. I don’t know what else can do this.

The alternative hazard features to sand bunkering are frankly pretty numerous and equally effective in play to sand bunkering.

Can you give us some examples of other hazards, that could take the place of sand?  Maybe some examples of courses well-known to many of us would help.  

I like your idea.  When I read it, I thought immediately of Sean Arble.  

I am a huge fan of properly allowing the terrain to dictate the style of a course and think the this concept is just paid lip service most of the time.  However, given that these types of sites are rare and that archies (for some reason that nobody has yet explained to me) are not willing to blow the hell out of a less than special site to create these funky bits that go a long way to replacing bunkers as the major source of interest, I do think bunkers are usually necessary.  The problem is how bunkers are used or over-used.  Much of the creativity of the game is taken away when bunkers are used as the primary source of interest.  Combine this with harsh rough and we have the modern receipe for design.  Challenging for sure, but dead boring imo.

I think most golfers wouldn't buy into the concept of natural golf and instead would tend to think of it as muni golf: less, but still important bunkering; funky lies requiring controlled ball flight; grade level greens (and tees?); having to use contours to get close to pin locations etc.  I am the rare the chap who thinks Dr Mac had a tendency to get carried away with surround bunkering to the point where it no longer looked natural.  Most people love the look and supposedly the strategic implications of the bunkers.  This is an issue which clearly doesn't need a "solution" because it is wildly popular.  

There are always exceptions and I usually point to Muirfield.  Talk about a bunkerfest, but they are done so well and are often so inconspicuous (a huge bonus imo) that I give it a thumbs up pass.  However, what is the one Open course which often fails to excite many golfers (the punters paying the green fees) looking for that championship thrill?  - Muirfied.  Is is often seen as bland, but I only see beauty.    

Ciao

You'd need to also reconsider the USGA course rating system if you didn't have sand bunkers.  Or would you even care?

Merry Christmas to all.....

Tom P,
I agree with the premise  BUT we have almost made the bunker more of an aesthetic feature than a strategic feature...almost to the point that a course w/o bunkers might be too difficult for the average player if these bunkers were replaced with varying short and long grass hollows etc....For me the comparison would be sort of like a natural looking woman,  say Meryl Streep....I bet there is still a lot of makeup there to make her look "natural".

As often already said on this site a closely mown hollow is usually more challanging for the low handicapper and more playable for the higher handicapper than bunkers are. It is therefore interesting that most players regard courses with few or no bunkers as lesser courses. The People want what the people know.

Take a look at it another way. If you were to remove all the bunkers from ANGC or Royal Dornoch and keep these areas closely mown would they be all that much easier to score on?

I would suggest they would not be significantly easier for the Pros and probably more playable for the higher handicapper

Jon,

IMHO I think they would also be much more difficult for the pros because the ball would come to rest much further from the green than if it just hit in sand and stopped...short sides would become an even bigger issue...

"I think the general consensus would be that you were giving up an important part of the game just to make a point or for some esoteric reason (naturalism), and most people will object to giving up something on that basis."

TomD:

Of course that's true to say so perhaps the smartest move would be to not make some esoteric point or give some esoteric reason like naturalism although I don't think it would be a good idea to deny the aspect of a greater attempt at naturalism in architecture. Give them a point and reason that's not esoteric at all and they really can understand like economics! It would be pretty hard for anyone to deny that given the cost of over-all bunker maintenance and repair.

Behr once mentioned that the vertical dimension is the penal dimension and even if the ways to use the vertical dimension to replace sand bunkering probably aren't all that numerous there are enough ways to do this I'm sure.

For a really natural and low cost alternative to sand bunkering I'd favor what I'd call "rough ground" in place of sand bunkering.

By that I do not mean just "rough" grass, I mean rough ground----eg rough dirt intermingled with whatever might pop up in it for a time.

One of the problems with attempting to do the latter is that at first it might run headlong into the Golf Rules definition of a "bunker".

Another problem might be that if "rough ground" is done in such a way that it does not fit the Rules definition of a bunker it might have something of a hard time containing a golf ball hit into it but so what----that's just part of the "iffiness" of naturalism including what might be termed "natural penalty".

This could actually bring back something of the natural element of "luck" and of course many golfers might freak out on that for a time but I expect that to quiet down if and when Bob Crosby gets finished with rerunning this fascinating debate between Joshua Crane on the one side and the likes of Max Behr et al on the other.

If Crosby does what I expect him to do I think this detrimental philosophy of Crane's to seriously minimize luck in the game which unfortunately the game followed can be defeated once and for all and hopefully forevermore!

Sand bunkers may or may not be natural, but they are alone in the design world as weapons/ tools that the architect can deploy to evoke emotion from all golfers. Of course, only the best golfers are able to stifle these emotions to some degree.

Intimidation, fear and even safety are some of the feelings that sand bunkers can provide a golfer. They also can evoke emotions based on the beauty or wretchedness of the design, as they hopefully enhance the surroundings of the golf course itself.

A golf course without bunkers is certainly doable, and can have it's own set of challenges which would be dictated by ground contours or other features, such as water or trees. But, the course might not provide the golfer with the same level of visual feedback in the form of emotional and mental challenges as those courses that employ sand bunkers.

As Sean Arble so often states, it's more about variety within the golf course itself, not so much about an either/ or proposition.

Joe

Tom,
Conceptually it could work, but are developers willing to abandon their view of what a golf course is?  It would take one brave soul latch on to this idea.

"But, the course might not provide the golfer with the same level of visual feedback in the form of emotional and mental challenges as those courses that employ sand bunkers."

Joe:

I'm sure I'm probably in the minority amongst golfers with this feeling but I've always felt that a course that is sort of low on immediate visual feedback (like obvious sand in bunkering) is better than the other way around.

The reason I say that is I think it just forces goflers to engage with the course more to try to determine visually just what is going on out there. I actually think that one of the best emotional and mental challenges a course can offer the golfer is some degree of doubt.

To me this is probably the true way of raw nature.

Tom Paul,

There is an unsung Langford-Moreau course called Spring Valley in Wisconsin (on a non-sandy site) that has been discussed a little bit around here.  It was designed with sand bunkers in the fairways and around the greens that were never built (paging Dan Moore for pictures).  Though the owner has planted trees over the years, fortunately few affect the basic strategy of the holes.  Most of the trouble on the course is around and on the greens, many of which are highly engineered but which in true L-M fashion, seem to fit the undulating farmland very well.  The course is plenty of fun and interesting as is, enough to cause one to wonder whether it would be that much better if it had been built with the sand bunkers as designed.   Where sand would normally be found in L-M's flat-bottomed bunkers, today one finds grass of varied lengths.  I don't think the grass makes for an easier up-n-down, and if you were to set up the course for a tournament, you could let that grass grow in some places, and cut it in others to give players a variety of problems to deal with.


Seems like there are lots of modest courses here in the Midwest in which bunkers have been avoided or not maintained, perhaps in part because they are not "natural" in farm country.  

After you've come back from your road trip to London with Tom Doak, you should consider a trip west to see/play some examples in person!