If bunkers were removed from every golf course in the world, how would our judgement the world's outstanding courses be altered. (Artificial bunkers removed, as opposed to natural dunes or sand barens)

What courses would remain near the top, what courses would suffer?

Crystal Downs would be even higher on the list.

Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes would still be there, but most likely a bit lower.

Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath would be WAY lower.  Muirfield would be WAY lower or gone entirely.

And some of you would finally realize why Augusta National is rated so highly!

When I played with Tommy at Yale, he suggested taking out all the rough, and just let the ball bounce all over the place. Now take out the bunkers too, and put back the original greens that have been altered. What would happen? I really don't know.

That is a great question and one I've always been fascinated by--not removing bunkering from existing golf courses but building new ones without bunkering or without SAND bunkering--particularly in all those many areas of this world where sand is NOT remotely natural to the environment.

I have nothing against sand bunkering except to remind that it truly is that ODD golf feature VESTIGE that hung on through the migration and evolution of golf out of the original linksland. And being that odd vestige that really isn't completely necessary to golf as are tees, fairways and greens makes its complete architectural proliferation all the odder.

Why did it do that? A good question although probably not that hard a question to answer. Part of the answer probably had to do with the attitude of the original linksmen that golf outside the linksland really wasn't golf at all and the reaction of early Heathland architects, for instance, to that proprietary attitude--ie they just naturally went with sand bunkering where it may not have been natural as a logical way of copying linksland golf elsewhere.

I'd love to see architects try something else in place of sand bunkering, though, where something else like natural looking grassy mounds or depressions would be more naturally appearing.

One can't deny, though, that sand bunkering has definitely always been a feature of real architectural artistic expression as well as an excellent tool to create strategy easily.

But to me there's nothing more natural and fun than what might be called "gravity" golf. But how many sites have that natural luxury--ie the kind of slope or contour to highlight real "gravity" golf?

Another thing that's alway made me wonder is why today architects can't spend the time they now spend moving large amounts of earth to simply put nauncy and subtle little contour in the earth much like exists naturally at the mecca of golf---TOC---just look at TOC in late day photos to see how complete and dramatic that is!  God knows they have the equipment to do that today. It certainly would take talent and artistry though to make that look natural if it had to be manufactured and maybe that alone is the drawback.

But how central is sand bunkering to the perception of golf today? One really only needs to look in the rule book to tell how completely that odd vestige--the sand bunke-- hung on!

I hvae to disagree with those who think that Muirfield would plummet without bunkers.  Most of them on that course are really eye candy, and the ones that matter (e.g. those in the elbows of 5, 8 and 17) could be easily "replicated" with natural grass faces humps and hollows.  The key to this thought experiement (as with any course) is at the green sites.  While Muirfield's do not have the natural contours at many other links courses, I do think that they are adequate enough to allow for the creation of significant non-bunker "hazards."  Why, for example, would missing 11 long be any easier trying to get up and down out of a hard pan hollow than from the bunkers that are currently there?

The fascinating example that I am familiar with is Cypress Point.  My first reaction is that sans bunkers the course would be like a 60-year old Mae West without any knickers.  On reflection, however, I think that even CPC could be great de-nuded, if they could get it playing firm and fast.

Tom MacWood:

Paul Turner is correct that Ballybunion would suffer very little.

Rich:

The thing about CPC is the natural site is basically nothing but sandy waste anyway--and so bunkering or sand areas of an even more natural variety would be adequate to ideal there anyway--except possibly on the famous last stretch of holes that are more rocky (without natural sand areas)! To tell how true this is one only needs to look at the photos of the preconstruction site!

The fact that MacKenzie created bunkering there which although it does look natural in a general sense is (or was) unquestionably highly "artistic" in appearance is worth remark though! The artistry of MacKenzie's unique bunkering at CPC is more a question of him using naturally occuring "lines" in his bunker shapes (that being the "lines" of nature perhaps found elsewhere) instead of just using the natural sand "lines" of the pre-construction site--that would logically have been far more amorphous!

On Muirfield you mentioned the bunkers at the elbow of hole #5--when you must have meant #6. The bunkering on the elbow of #6 is two beautifully placed bunkers of strategic significance. Bunkering on other holes, particularly the bunkering completely inside the fairway lines is definitely central to the strategy of those holes. #8!! (two restored bunkers across the approach)  and #9! Also #15 and #17.

All the Colt bunkering on #1 should definitely be replaced, in my opinion. All that bunkering along the right side of the second half of the hole and most DEFINITELY that smallish bunker directly in the middle of the fairway in the LZ of #1!

Obviously Royal Ashdown Forest would skyrocket in the rankings.

Here's a course where the absence of sand bunkers does not affect the playing interest at all. Thick heather and naturally rough ground are adequate substitutes and blend perfectly with the surroundings. There is a lack of visual contrast - something we have come to expect on golf courses - which might leave some people underwhelmed. But for a parkland parallel to the naturalness of a links, it's hard to fault.

What a great thread.

I think the Old Course would still be challenging with not a single bunker on it. While there would be a lot of holes where the strategy would change, they would still be very strategic holes. i.e. the Road Hole with no Scholars or Road Hole bunker would mean a complete different strategy to play the hole, and it would still be a difficult hole. The Eden would of course welcome more topped shots, but the green would adequately defend itself. The one hole that might lose some interest would be the 14th because Hell plays such an important part of the strategy and charm.

Tom Doak,
Augusta before Fazio or after Fazio?

Mike,
I continually wake-up ever morning thinking how great Yale is and really could be if someone of intellect was calling the shots on how the course should be maintained, even with the loss of features.

What other courses in the U.S.were designed and built with no fairway bunkers ??

Olympic Lake has only 1 fairway bunker (which is 1 more than none).

However, I think that the Lake would be a fabulous course without the greenside bunkers (a few holes, #1 and #4 are already bunkerless near the green).  I'm debating in my mind what the better greenside condition would be: thick, gnarly rough (native grasses) or shaven sloping areas falling away from the green (think Pinehurst #2).

The look-a-like par-3's on the back (#13 and #15) would have almost a table top like green without bunkers (espicially for 15) and closely mown fringes would make recovery shots more challenging.

And of course, the elimination of the bunkers would allow for the ground game to take a more prominent role in stategy ...

Mike

Tommy:  before Fazio, before rough.

I don't think it's fair to assume in this hypothetical situation that Muirfield can add mounds in place of bunkers.  I also don't think it's fair to let Pine Valley and Cypress Point keep their sandy wastes.  Grass them like a normal course, and Cypress isn't nearly as good, and Pine Valley certainly is no longer #1.

What would be the top ten?

Pebble Beach (still tiny greens, still a lot of cliffs in play)
Augusta National (they wouldn't need the rough to compete)
St. Andrews
Ballybunion (might be #1)
Royal Dornoch
Pinehurst #2 (nobody's mentioned it yet!)
Crystal Downs
Prairie Dunes
Royal Portrush

Harbour Town would come back up a few notches, too.  And people might have to deal with High Pointe again!

It really is inmaterial if the course today has numerous fairway bunkers or none at all. For example Kingsley has a fair number of bunkers both fairway and greenside, but it would still remain strong without them. Stanley Thompson is known for his bold bunkers, but I'd submit Cape Breton as a course that would remain very strong sans bunkers.

My first thought was Cypress Point might do so well, but upon further consideration I think it would.

Oakmont I don't think would fair too well. Oakland Hills would do better. Camargo, Shoreacres, St. Louis would all be good...Chicago not so good. Garden City?

Mayfield would remain very good. Eastward Ho! would make a big jump ahead.

Crystal Downs-Just as good


Cypress Point-setting is tremendous


Highland Links-few bunkers anyway, so not much lost


Merion-this showed me that the bunker placement i crutial to the framing of this course


Pasatiempo-great land all the same


Prarie Dunes-unbelievable setting does not miss them


Pine Valley (no waste areas, they are bunkers)- still great but not the same


Panorama Resort-this was just to show that the setting can make the hole (bunkers are removed) (and yes this was done by us)


Intrested in feedback.