Flat Bottomed Bunkers

« **on:** January 20, 2008, 03:15:39 PM »

Wayno has stated his aversion to flat bottomed bunkers.

He's refered to their "laser like" floor bottoms.

But, Wayno ignores the historical perspective that must be taken into account when analyzing bunkers.

Some of those issues with Flat bottomed bunkers are:

1 There were NO lasers when CBM-SR-CB were designing
and building their flat bottomed bunkers.

2 There's always been a desire for consistent sand depth

3 Gravity

4 Rain

5 Internal Bunker Construction costs

6 Foot pad construction costs

7 Maintainance costs

8 Maintainance issues

9 Construction difficulty with other than flat floored bunkers

10 Wind

11 Craftsmanship in construction

12 Consistancy

13 Penal nature of bunkers

When you examine bunkers from 1900 to the end of WW II it would seem that the 13 items listed above, at one time or another, would dictate the prudence of creating flat bottomed bunkers, versus any other style.

I've had several architects tell me that bunkers that slope up toward the green provide the higher handicap golfer with a built in aid with respect to extricating the ball without the impediments found in a flat bottomed bunker with a fronting bank, berm or elevation.

Given you choice, and understanding the confines of the site soil, which bunker configuration is more penal and which configuration do you prefer, and why ?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2008, 03:24:09 PM »

It depends on the site of the course. If the course is in such an area that will allow for natural, scruffy looking bunkers, then just keep them like that. In that case there is no need to create bunkers that look artifical. However, when presented with a site that will not allow for natural bunkering, then the design that requires the least maintenance is best. In many cases, that is the flat bottomed, grass faced bunkers. The grass will hold the face in place, resisting erosion, and the sand in the bottom will not be subject to erosion either. It could however lead to standing water in the bonkers, depending on the subsoil conditions. However, for greenside conditions, I think that steep faced, flat bottom pot bunkers surrounded by Run-off areas are the least labor intensive of all options.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2008, 03:37:13 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2008, 03:15:39 PM

I've had several architects tell me that bunkers that slope up toward the green provide the higher handicap golfer with a built in aid with respect to extricating the ball without the impediments found in a flat bottomed bunker with a fronting bank, berm or elevation.

Pat

Funny that you would quote architects on this. You are a good player - is this what your experience playing with HH golfers leads you to believe? In my experience, that is what I've seen the last 34 years, ALL bunkers shots are difficult for HH golfers. Add any kind of awkward lie and the difficulty is increased.
It is, rather, good players who tend to benefit from the ramp effect of the ball on the upslope as they will make the necessary adjustments and they will not be terrified by the prospect of failure.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2008, 03:44:14 PM »

Pat - The better golfers I know prefer flat bottomed bunkers to those that up slope up on the sides away from a green or fairway. When Rees Jones refurbished his dad's Chanticleer course at Greenville CC he remodeled the relatively flat bottomed bunkers into deeper pits more closely shaped like catcher's mitts. If your ball gets caught on a side away from a green, for example, the resulting shot from an extremely downhill lie is nearly impossible to execute without pitching the ball out sideways. His new bunkers definitely "toughened" the course and make the bunkers more penal, but the better players think they are too penal... and "unfair" if you catch one of those downhill lies. Flat bottomed bunkers do give golfers more opportunities to successfully extricate themselves than those with curved and slanting sides.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2008, 04:06:16 PM »

Ed Lawrence Packard was very good at designing an equal balance of greenside bunkers that split the numbers of bunkers that generally sloped towards the green (the much harder downhill lie bunker shot) and away from the green (the easier uphill lie bunker blast). While his bunkers aren't particularly artistic in the cape and bay, or lips and snarls design (he comes from the R.B. Harris school) and they tend to be more oval and set back a few feet from green surfaces for mower ease. Yet, they are well placed and well designed for drainage issues, etc. In that regard, Packard was a pretty good architect.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2008, 04:07:47 PM »

Didn't Queen sing a song about these?......

« **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2008, 04:10:54 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on January 20, 2008, 04:07:47 PM

Didn't Queen sing a song about these?......

Joe the evidence that's it's time for you to have a new hearing test, is mounting.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2008, 04:34:34 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on January 20, 2008, 04:07:47 PM

Didn't Queen sing a song about these?......

Joe

Given may tangential debate with Pat on another thread I managed to restrain myself from pointing this out, but I'm very glad you bring it up.
They do indeed make the rocking world go round!

« **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2008, 04:41:56 PM »

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on January 20, 2008, 04:34:34 PM

Quote from: Joe Hancock on January 20, 2008, 04:07:47 PM
Didn't Queen sing a song about these?......

Joe

Given may tangential debate with Pat on another thread I managed to restrain myself from pointing this out, but I'm very glad you bring it up.
They do indeed make the rocking world go round!

"I want to ride my E-Z-Go, I want ride my cart....."

OK, OK...I"ll stop....

« **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2008, 04:52:16 PM »

#10 at Eagle Ridge has a large flat bottomed bunker. It defines the left side of the green and extends about 40yds toward the left side of the fairway. It is essentially the inside of a dogleg left. It is very wide.

To me it makes good sense. Because it is so large and is placed so strategically, there is quite a high probability of entry. In order that the hole not be too difficult, it is not too bad to get out of, with it's 3-4ft walls and small lip. So while it is often penal, it is not overly so.

A smaller bunker might likely be deeper and more uneven, yes?

Doug

« **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2008, 05:03:39 PM »

My biggest objection to flat-bottomed bunkers with steep slopes leading into them - which describes the bunkers Jerry Pate designed for Pensacola CC - is the frequency with which balls tend to stop very close to these slopes, leaving an extremely awkward shot with your feet up on the slopes and the ball far below your feet.

Not that this has ever happened to me.

With sloped faces, the ball would tend to run away from the extreme edges of the bunkers. With the flat bottoms, it just rolls right up against those slopes.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2008, 05:09:12 PM »

Bill McBride raises an excellent point. Truly flat bunkers create this situation far too often, in my opinion. I prefer bunkers with slight upturns at the front and back of the bunker. This is what they just did at Sleepy Hollow.

The look is the same, and the steep grass face is still there, but he frequency of balls against the lip are greatly reduced.

« **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2008, 06:10:00 PM »

"Given you choice, and understanding the confines of the site soil, which bunker configuration is more penal and which configuration do you prefer, and why?"

Patrick:

Generally, I look at bunkers in two basic ways:

1. Aesthetics--ie do they look more or less natural or do they look more or less artificial and man-made.

2. Playability---ie what is it about their sand surfaces or surrounds that makes them play more or less penalizing.

I think flat bottom bunkers and the surrounds of flat-bottomed bunkers of the National School type look more man-made than other bunker styles.

I think the flat bottomed bunkers with the more vertical surrounds of the National School type tend to play more difficult and challenging because it is quite "iffy" where your ball ends up---eg in relation to how close it gets to the vertical front face.

An example of some of the potential very penal playability problems with flat sand floors and vertical surrounds of the National School type:

Recently the rear bunker on The Creek's #1 was rebuilt. It was determined that the rear surround angle was too vertical whereby a ball over-running the green too fast could get too near the rear face in the sand whereby a player could not take a backswing and would have to either do somethng like putt the ball to another position in the bunker or play a bunker shot sideways and not at the green surface.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2008, 07:57:54 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 05:03:39 PM

My biggest objection to flat-bottomed bunkers with steep slopes leading into them - which describes the bunkers Jerry Pate designed for Pensacola CC - is the frequency with which balls tend to stop very close to these slopes, leaving an extremely awkward shot with your feet up on the slopes and the ball far below your feet.

Bill,

Isn't that more a function of the mowing practice of the grass that buffers and leads down into the bunker ?[/color]

With sloped faces, the ball would tend to run away from the extreme edges of the bunkers. With the flat bottoms, it just rolls right up against those slopes.

Why would a ball, aided by it's own momentum and assisted by gravity, suddenly stop when it encountered the sand ?[/color]

« **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2008, 08:02:43 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 20, 2008, 06:10:00 PM

Recently the rear bunker on The Creek's #1 was rebuilt.
It was determined that the rear surround angle was too vertical whereby a ball over-running the green too fast could get too near the rear face in the sand whereby a player could not take a backswing and would have to either do somethng like putt the ball to another position in the bunker or play a bunker shot sideways and not at the green surface.

TEPaul,

That seems like a radical solution to a rare occurance.

While the angle and slope of # 1 green is unique and promotes running away from the golfer, the hole is fairly short and I can't see a ball running off the green, down the slope and all the way across the bunker, coming to rest against the far side, unless is was bladed.

The number of golfers who go long of greens is miniscule compared to those who are green high or short.

That change sounds like a pet project.

# 1 is one of the sportiest opening holes around.[/color]

« **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2008, 08:16:35 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2008, 07:57:54 PM

Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 05:03:39 PM

My biggest objection to flat-bottomed bunkers with steep slopes leading into them - which describes the bunkers Jerry Pate designed for Pensacola CC - is the frequency with which balls tend to stop very close to these slopes, leaving an extremely awkward shot with your feet up on the slopes and the ball far below your feet.

Why would a ball, aided by it's own momentum and assisted by gravity, suddenly stop when it encountered the sand ?[/color]

Well it doesn't, Pat, it tends to roll across the bottom of the bunker until it gets very close to the steep slope. That's the problem. The mowing of the grass has no effect, the ball runs down the fairway and into the bunker and then up against the slope - as often as not.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2008, 08:24:10 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 05:03:39 PM

My biggest objection to flat-bottomed bunkers with steep slopes leading into them - which describes the bunkers Jerry Pate designed for Pensacola CC - is the frequency with which balls tend to stop very close to these slopes, leaving an extremely awkward shot with your feet up on the slopes and the ball far below your feet.

Not that this has ever happened to me.

With sloped faces, the ball would tend to run away from the extreme edges of the bunkers. With the flat bottoms, it just rolls right up against those slopes.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2008, 08:39:13 PM »

By contrast, this is what I'm talking about - fairway bunker on #2 and greenside bunkers in the distance:

When a tee shot enter this bunker and rolls - on that flat, firm sand - the ball has a tendency to wind up very close to the steep grass, with resulting awkward stances.

In the bunker Mike shows above, balls will tend to roll away from the grassy slope and into a playable area.

I'm not complaining, mind you.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2008, 09:19:58 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on January 20, 2008, 04:07:47 PM

Didn't Queen sing a song about these?......

Joe

I think Queen released a poster relating to this thread. With every poster purchase, you got a free vinyl LP with some of Queen's latest musical releases. I think Queen wrote a particular song to increase the publicity on the poster.

I never bought the poster, but I did look at one that someone else bought, but I didn't inhale (or something like that).

James B

« **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2008, 10:28:33 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 08:16:35 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2008, 07:57:54 PM
Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 05:03:39 PM

My biggest objection to flat-bottomed bunkers with steep slopes leading into them - which describes the bunkers Jerry Pate designed for Pensacola CC - is the frequency with which balls tend to stop very close to these slopes, leaving an extremely awkward shot with your feet up on the slopes and the ball far below your feet.

Why would a ball, aided by it's own momentum and assisted by gravity, suddenly stop when it encountered the sand ?[/color]

Well it doesn't, Pat, it tends to roll across the bottom of the bunker until it gets very close to the steep slope. That's the problem. The mowing of the grass has no effect, the ball runs down the fairway and into the bunker and then up against the slope - as often as not.

Isn't a bunker supposed to be a hazard, and not an area that provides the golfer with a simple recovery ?

With Lob wedges, a ball close to the front face of greenside bunkers should be relatively easy to extract, especially the bunkers here in the U.S.[/color]

« **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2008, 10:35:43 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2008, 10:28:33 PM

Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 08:16:35 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2008, 07:57:54 PM
Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 05:03:39 PM

My biggest objection to flat-bottomed bunkers with steep slopes leading into them - which describes the bunkers Jerry Pate designed for Pensacola CC - is the frequency with which balls tend to stop very close to these slopes, leaving an extremely awkward shot with your feet up on the slopes and the ball far below your feet.

Why would a ball, aided by it's own momentum and assisted by gravity, suddenly stop when it encountered the sand ?[/color]

Well it doesn't, Pat, it tends to roll across the bottom of the bunker until it gets very close to the steep slope. That's the problem. The mowing of the grass has no effect, the ball runs down the fairway and into the bunker and then up against the slope - as often as not.

Isn't a bunker supposed to be a hazard, and not an area that provides the golfer with a simple recovery ?

With Lob wedges, a ball close to the front face of greenside bunkers should be relatively easy to extract, especially the bunkers here in the U.S.[/color]

Apparently you've chosen to misunderstand the situation I've tried to describe -- the slopes are so steep that your feet are perhaps 12-18" above the level of the sand and in very awkward footing. If this happened once in a while, it would be okay. As it is, it happens considerably more often.

It's a function of dead flat sand and 1/1 or steeper slope.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2008, 10:55:10 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on January 20, 2008, 10:35:43 PM

Apparently you've chosen to misunderstand the situation I've tried to describe -- the slopes are so steep that your feet are perhaps 12-18" above the level of the sand and in very awkward footing.

Wouldn't the same thing happen with a concave bunker floor ?

The sand has to be contained by a foot pad or the surrounding terrain, otherwise it would run out every time it rained or the wind blew hard.

The random nature of golf determines your lie in a bunker.

The more penal the bunker, the more it has to be factored into your play.

If you hit your ball up against the faces of the bunkers at TOC, Troon and other UK courses, that's the penalty that's inherent in the construction of the bunker.

The more penal the bunker, the more your tactics must consider play to or away from it.[/color]

If this happened once in a while, it would be okay. As it is, it happens considerably more often.

I don't know any courses where this occurs as a pattern.
Which course are you referencing ?[/color]

It's a function of dead flat sand and 1/1 or steeper slope.

Not really.

Look at the picture posted by Mike Benham.
The same situation, where you're well above the ball can occur on sloped bunkers as well.[/color]

« **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:12:39 PM »

The Australian GC, after being redesigned by Nicklaus in the late 70’s, mostly has flat bottom bunkers with perfect white sand at a perfectly even depth. Although many of the bunkers are quite deep, they are the easiest bunkers to play out of. The Australian Open is often played there & the pros love them because they are extremely fair.

I have never believed that bunkers are meant to be fair.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:14:40 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2008, 07:57:54 PM

Why would a ball, aided by it's own momentum and assisted by gravity, suddenly stop when it encountered the sand ?[/b][/color]

Why would a ball stop? Why did the chicken cross the road? I don't know the answer, perhaps I should ask the ball/chicken.

Actually, I think a key element has been left out of Pat's statement. The ball's movement is determined by its (no apostrophe) momentum and assisted by gravity but also affected by the friction co-efficient of the sand. Packed sand will lead to more roll than ridged/fluffy sand. Looking at Mike Golden's photo, I expect limited friction would occur, leading to gravity (from the slope) being greater than the friction, leading to balls finishing on the flat (albeit, often with the stance on the slope). If the sand was fluffier, the ball could stop on the slope.

I had great difficulty writing the word PACKED in my reply. The season just went from fairy tale to old wives tale. Hard CHEESE indeed. Dick, my condolences.

James B

« **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:48:56 PM »

I see no reason why a flat-bottomed bunker would be any more or less penal than a bunker with a curved-bottom. To my mind, the depth of the bunker is a bigger factor as to the penal nature of a bunker than the shape of the bottom.

Personally, I find hitting a bunker shot off a sharp upslope much more challenging than hitting off a flat lie. Also, in a flat-bottomed bunker, you don't have to worry about hitting off a down-sloped lie to a green above you. In that regard, flat-bottomed bunkers are less penal.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

John Moore II

Lloyd_Cole

Michael Whitaker

RJ_Daley

Joe Hancock

Tony_Muldoon

Lloyd_Cole

Joe Hancock

Doug Ralston

Bill_McBride

Bill Brightly

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Bill_McBride

Mike Benham

Bill_McBride

James Bennett

Patrick_Mucci

Bill_McBride

Patrick_Mucci

Andrew Summerell

James Bennett

David_Tepper