[Mike_Cirba]

Or put another way, is there a course of Tom's that has ragged bunkering that hasn't had a lot of buzz here?

I'm beginning to think/wonder if we aren't all sort of bunkeraholics, or perhaps a better analogy might be bunker porno-philes, who no longer can appreciate anything but full frontal, bold displays?  

What say ye all?

[Bart Bradley]

As I recall, the Rawls course doesn't have ragged bunkering ...does it?

I do think that the current "in vogue" bunkering is the ragged style...ala Doak/C&C.  Accordingly, we see them as attractive and enticing.  When I look at some pictures of the early 70s haircuts and leisure suits....most thought they looked absolutely great at the time...I realize not all trends are meant to last.  However, some aspects of the 70s look have become "classic" and timeless.  I suspect that we are currently especially drawn to this type of bunkering AND it will become a timeless classic option just like the stacked face bunkers in Scotland still appeal to our senses today.

I guarantee that Doak has, can and will design courses without this look that will get a lot of "buzz" here and elsewhere.

Say I,

Bart

[Greg Murphy]

Unless there are some truly dramatic land forms, bunkers are likely the first thing to make an impression when a person is exposed to a course. I've wondered, too, about the shallowness of players (me included) judging courses by unwittingly placing too much emphasis on the look of their bunkers.

That said, good looking bunkers that make you take notice, by definition, add more to the experience of a course than indifferent bunkering. BTW, tastes vary but are there any fans of the clamshells at Southern Hills?

[John Moore II]

Perhaps the reason some courses don't get as much notice is because they are not quite as good as the rest. Maybe the site was not as great, or perhaps, based on the site and soil conditions, the 'ragged' bunkers would not look natural. It seems to me that the natural look is what Doak tries for...correct me if I am wrong though.

[paul cowley]

Or put another way, is there a course of Tom's that has ragged bunkering that hasn't had a lot of buzz here?

I'm beginning to think/wonder if we aren't all sort of bunkeraholics, or perhaps a better analogy might be bunker porno-philes, who no longer can appreciate anything but full frontal, bold displays?  

What say ye all?


 

Mike....I agree to an extent....they are definately what catches the eye of the cameras.

On the opposite side....I was pleased today that DL lll, while on a walk thru of the faux "Ricefields" course, enjoyed the one bunkerless hole the best.

[John Moore II]

This is actually in response to the Riverfront Thread by Scott--i find it funny that seemingly all Doak course discussions center around bunkering. It was my thought that Doak wished to be considered a naturalist and based on that property he had to work with at Riverfront, scruffy bunkers would not have been any more natural than the straight edge bunkers. Either one are unnatural because that type of marsh/swampland does not have any native sand, I know I lived in a place like that for a long time. The only way for Riverfront to be natural is to have no bunkers, and who wants that...

[Greg Holland]

Heathland has had a fair amount of discussion, and it doesn't have the ragged edged bunkers.  

[Tom_Doak]

Cape Kidnappers isn't particularly known for its bunkers ... it has other attributes.  And Heathland gets a little bit of discussion here, but only because they have hosted nearly one million rounds of golf since they opened, so a lot of people are familiar with it.

Curious if everybody thinks Ballyneal is all about the bunkers.  It's not, but I'm curious if that is the perception.  Most of the discussion here has been about the contours of the fairways and greens ... even though it is an amorphous discussion because you can't describe a contour as easily as you can describe a bunker.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think that a successful course needs to fit in with its surrounds and this means the bunkering must be of a style that also does this. Heather on a bunker face on a heathland course looks great but on a parkland course may look out of place.

The ragged look needs the natural feel being utilised through the course in order to fit which is something that Tom D achieves very well in his work and sometimes is missed or not understood fully by others.

I like the ragged look as it means less flymo

[Sean_A]

Cape Kidnappers isn't particularly known for its bunkers ... it has other attributes.  And Heathland gets a little bit of discussion here, but only because they have hosted nearly one million rounds of golf since they opened, so a lot of people are familiar with it.

Curious if everybody thinks Ballyneal is all about the bunkers.  It's not, but I'm curious if that is the perception.  Most of the discussion here has been about the contours of the fairways and greens ... even though it is an amorphous discussion because you can't describe a contour as easily as you can describe a bunker.

Tom

I think what attracted me to Ballyneal the most was that you seemed (from photos only) to give the bunkering a break.  It doesn't look the bunkering is as much as some other courses (courses in general - not just yours) or as much in your face.  By inference, the land seems to be the star of the show.

Ciao

[paul cowley]

Sean....there is probably some kind of coalition between the better the land, the less need for bunkers.
...and visa versa.

[Mark_Fine]

Here are two photos of bunkers from two different courses on the same terrain.  In fact, the courses butt up against one another.  One is from French Creek designed by Hanse and one is from Stonewall designed by Doak.  I won't say which is which for now but some of you can probably figure it out or have been then and know.





I'm curious which photo you guys think is more "natural" looking?

[Dave Bourgeois]

Top looks most natural to me.  The bunkers seem almost hidden in plain sight (if that is possible).  They look like they've been there for years.

Bottom looks cool, and from the perspective of th photo would seem to help define the strategy a bit better. However, without being on the ground its tough to say.

[Mike_Cirba]

Cape Kidnappers isn't particularly known for its bunkers ... it has other attributes.  And Heathland gets a little bit of discussion here, but only because they have hosted nearly one million rounds of golf since they opened, so a lot of people are familiar with it.

Curious if everybody thinks Ballyneal is all about the bunkers.  It's not, but I'm curious if that is the perception.  Most of the discussion here has been about the contours of the fairways and greens ... even though it is an amorphous discussion because you can't describe a contour as easily as you can describe a bunker.

Tom,

My point isn't that any one of these courses "is all about the bunkers".  

Instead, I'm suggesting that many of your less-discussed courses fall under the radar because they don't have that initial visual oomph provided by startlingly eye-catching bunkering.

I'm suggesting that we as a group tend to get pretty shallow in that area at times.

I'm finding that in my recent study of a course that has a total of 25 bunkers, that they can be almost superflous or even distracting given a solid routing, really good land, and great selection of greensites.   I think they have become a crutch of sorts, and I think your recent comment that some bunker heavily because they want it to appear to the owner that he's getting some work for his design money to be an interesting one that says a lot about our collective impressions/expectations of what a golf course should be.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Top looks most natural to me.  The bunkers seem almost hidden in plain sight (if that is possible).  They look like they've been there for years.

Bottom looks cool, and from the perspective of th photo would seem to help define the strategy a bit better. However, without being on the ground its tough to say.

I would agree.  The darker looking sand played into my decision as well.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark Fine,

Cool selection of pics, with their apparent similarities in layout and playability.

The big difference in the bunkers, apart from sand color, is the pitch, or angle at which the sand is flashed. This is, of course, by design. You can see in the bottom picture how similar the pitch of all the bunkers are. It makes for a more dramatic presentation.

Which one is better? It's a matter of personal preference, both aesthetically and playability-wise.

If I had to guess, I would say Doak is the top pic, Hanse is the bottom. I'd also say that from these two limited examples, I like both presentations equally well.

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

I've got to run (Turf Grass Conf. in Valley Forge) but I'm curious if you guys know who's course is who's.  If you know for sure, hold off with your opinion.

Mark

[JC Jones]

The top looks more natural to me because the dark grass and darker sand make the bunkers blend into the entire landscape.  I havent been there, but it appears to be rolling terrain and the bunkers in the top picture appear to be just more rolls in the terrain.

[Mark Pearce]

Like Joe I'd guess Doak top, Hanse bottom.

[Andy Hughes]

How much of the way the bunkers look are the architect's doing vs maintenance practices?  It always seems unfortunate to me when I see old pictures of courses like St Andrews with scary bunkers that clearly just evolved vs what they have become--perfect circles with sharply defined edges that should only be permitted on Falcon's Fire (that's for you Mr Cirba).
But then, we seem to give St Andrews a pass for its horridly unnatural appearance (or maybe I am alone in feeling that way)

[Mike_Cirba]

It looks to me that one was imitating the ground, while the other was imitating the clouds!  

I know, so I won't tell.

[Paul_Turner]

Ragged bunkers=Sandy Site=Better Course?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ragged bunkers=Sandy Site=Better Course?

Paul,

Interesting point, but wouldn't that theory also logically assume that most every sandy site was inherently a better course than every inland site?

I'm not sure that would hold to be true.

[George Pazin]

I think the discussion or lack thereof simply reflects how many people (and to a lesser degree, which people) have played the courses. I don't think the decision to play said courses is made by the look of the bunkers, so I think it's simply coincidence.

Gil top, Tom bottom. Those bottom bunkers don't look like any French Creek photos I've seen.

[Kirk Gill]

My uneducated guess would be that the pic 1 is Hanse and pic 2 is Mr. Doak. I'd agree that the sand color in pic1 allows the bunkering to stick out less. Plus, there are fewer bunkers in that picture, overall. I don't know that any of those bunkers look strictly "natural," per se, but that's just a personal bugaboo of mine.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()