Can a course w/o bunkers be accepted??

« **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2004, 02:51:46 PM »

Growing up, I played plenty of courses without sand bunkers. Of course, that was simply because they couldn't afford them. Others had them at one point but simply let them grow over with time.

None of these courses were "great" but it did create an expectation in me that a good hole didn't need sand, necessarily.

« **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:07:43 PM »

Please see below my last post from the Derivative/Original Thread:

"For Originality:

I like the concept of a bunkerless course, I'd like it more if it were a hazardless course with no out of bounds. Taken to it's logical extreme, a treeless hazardless course with no out of bounds . . . hmm . . . on the right property that could be amazing."

« **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:13:46 PM »

Mike.

Me too. Starting golf in the 60's, many courses were devoid of bunkers. Made a nice novelty when encountering courses that did.

Michael.

You are correct about Huntercombe, it had no sand bunkers but it has a few now.

When I get into work tomorrow I will post a few pics of Royal Ashdown Forest, a course that when played, one hardly notices the absence of sand. There is an abundance of other features to keep the mind engaged.

« **Reply #28 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:15:16 PM »

How about a 4500 yard course for 40+ handicaps, no bunkers, no rough, no OB, no water. Just tees, fairways and greens.

« **Reply #29 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:16:06 PM »

Quote from: Michael Wharton-Palmer on November 17, 2004, 02:26:38 PM

I would relish Mr Doaks thoughts on this topic, because I can envision him being the one designer out there, that would be able to produce a great golf course without the aid of sand.

You'll find some of Mr. Doak's thoughts on this topic at www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7769;start=msg150392#msg150392

« **Reply #30 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:16:10 PM »

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on November 17, 2004, 03:07:43 PM

Please see below my last post from the Derivative/Original Thread:

"For Originality:

I like the concept of a bunkerless course, I'd like it more if it were a hazardless course with no out of bounds. Taken to it's logical extreme, a treeless hazardless course with no out of bounds . . . hmm . . . on the right property that could be amazing."

Jason;

I'll even go a step further. How about everything cut to fairway height, even if it's just native grasses (preferably fescue on sandy soil)?

No rough, no borders, just tees, greens, and no predetermined best way to get there.

« **Reply #31 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:23:24 PM »

You know what, I played a course like that years ago. It was a muni with great wide fairways, a few hazards but none in play, flat slow greens and they had made the inspired decision to call every hole of over about 420 a par five. I chopped it round in about four under and it was the most popular course for about a hundred miles around.

Great for the ego and for regaining a bit of self esteem. Loved it!!!

« **Reply #32 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:24:52 PM »

Why have tees and greens? Just go out with hand mowers a couple of times a week and cut 9 or 10 putting surfaces with 2 cups each. Then play the field as the ocassion moves you. Would it still be golf?

« **Reply #33 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:25:18 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Cirba on November 17, 2004, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on November 17, 2004, 03:07:43 PM
Please see below my last post from the Derivative/Original Thread:

"For Originality:

I like the concept of a bunkerless course, I'd like it more if it were a hazardless course with no out of bounds. Taken to it's logical extreme, a treeless hazardless course with no out of bounds . . . hmm . . . on the right property that could be amazing."

Jason;

I'll even go a step further. How about everything cut to fairway height, even if it's just native grasses (preferably fescue on sandy soil)?

No rough, no borders, just tees, greens, and no predetermined best way to get there.

You guys are starting to sound like Max Behr -- with one key difference: I can understand you!

« **Reply #34 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:39:52 PM »

From many of the replies...I gather that most think a bunkerless course would be less difficult. IMHO it would be much harder if done correctly. Steep faces on open grassy hollows can deliver the same shadows etc as with flat sand which is not seen from approaches etc. I just see much more difficulty.

« **Reply #35 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:43:42 PM »

I played a course without bunkers, Raptor Bay by Ray Floyd in Naples. I was underwhelmed. While there were some changelling greens and approaches, I would not play it a second time, nor recommend it to someone to play.

« **Reply #36 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:45:24 PM »

Mike.

Speaking as a superintendent, I do see many examples of double figure bunker extrication, mainly from the ladies section but I do agree, in most cases long grass has become far less predictable than uniform, perfectly presented sand.

« **Reply #37 on:** November 17, 2004, 04:04:43 PM »

Quote from: cary lichtenstein on November 17, 2004, 03:43:42 PM

I played a course without bunkers, Raptor Bay by Ray Floyd in Naples. I was underwhelmed. While there were some changelling greens and approaches, I would not play it a second time, nor recommend it to someone to play.

Was its bunkerlessness the cause -- or even a cause --
of its underwhelmingness?

« **Reply #38 on:** November 17, 2004, 04:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly on November 17, 2004, 03:25:18 PM

You guys are starting to sound like Max Behr -- with one key difference: I can understand you!

Quote

Dan;

I guess Tom Paul was right when he told me earlier today that I was losing my mind.

« **Reply #39 on:** November 17, 2004, 05:17:43 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 17, 2004, 11:10:05 AM

Brian:

Although I'm a huge advocate of an architect experimenting with a sandless course (no sand bunkering at all) I do think it should be in the realm of new construction and not the ripping out and grassing over of sand bunkering on existing courses. And in that vein, BRIAN, KEEP YOUR COTTON-PICKING HANDS OR EVEN THE THOUGHT OF THEM OFF PVGC's #7 ULTRA FAMOUS HHA!!!

I didn't mean to remove the bunker from the actual HHA, but reusing the hole concept and making the HHA be nasty grasses, shrubs. Balls still could be played out of that gunk, but it would preserve the bunker-less concept and use the architecture of #7.....hell, I'd even let you throw in Crump's plan for the double-dogleg

« **Reply #40 on:** November 17, 2004, 05:55:12 PM »

Dan:

Interesting question you pose, made me pause and reflect before I answered.

It was not the bunkers, but the course. I can think of many bunkerless holes that are wonderful, and would love to play over and over again.

However, I think a course needs balance, and a variety of bunkers, really does the trick for me. Look at St. Andrews for example, what would that course be without bunkers?

« **Reply #41 on:** November 17, 2004, 06:50:50 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Cirba on November 17, 2004, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on November 17, 2004, 03:07:43 PM

Jason;

I'll even go a step further. How about everything cut to fairway height, even if it's just native grasses (preferably fescue on sandy soil)?

No rough, no borders, just tees, greens, and no predetermined best way to get there.

Agreed, btw, I've heard a little mysterious course on the Oregon Coast with some very impressive neighbors is sort of like that?

« **Reply #42 on:** November 17, 2004, 06:59:49 PM »

Speaking of bunkerless and apropos of this thread, the bunker-making maestros, Coore and Crenshaw, have a hole at Hidden Creek G.C. that's bunkerless--#5! Before the opening of the course a few of us, including architect Bill Coore and bunker-making genius Jeff Bradley, were standing on the tee of #5 silently cogitating on its sublime bunkerlessness!

After a few moments of silence the mellifluent voice of Coore wafted;

"Jeff, if we design more bunkerless holes like this one you'll be out of business."

After a moment or two of more contemplative silence the voice of Jeff Bradley retorted:

"Bill, if you guys build too many more bunkerless holes like this you'll be out of business."

« **Reply #43 on:** November 17, 2004, 07:42:23 PM »

Mike,

Brace Gracely mentioned the famous 11th hole, but I would go further and suggest you could eliminate every bunker and the Old Course at Ballybunion wouldn't change that much.

Find some land that good - or spend loads of money to shape something similiar - and you could probably build a course without bunkers that many golfers would find enjoyable.

A large percentage of golfers don't like bunkers or can't play out of them very well. So, why would they be a requirement on every course?

« **Reply #44 on:** November 17, 2004, 07:48:11 PM »

TimW:

Don't be such a damn stranger!

« **Reply #45 on:** November 17, 2004, 08:14:49 PM »

Tom Paul:

Thanks. Having returned to the oil trading world I don't have as much time for golf, but I am looking forward to seeing Cape Kidnappers, St Andrews Beach and Barnbougle in a few weeks, not to mention some of the other gems "down under".

So maybe I'll have a bit more to say!

« **Reply #46 on:** November 17, 2004, 10:51:45 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Cirba on November 17, 2004, 02:51:46 PM

Growing up, I played plenty of courses without sand bunkers. Of course, that was simply because they couldn't afford them.

This is a good point. Many decent courses are struggling. My local just removed an excellent bunker because of budget and worries about the stability of the green.. Initially I was very annoyed, but the state of the existing bunkers is so awful, the sand is that nasty white fluffy stuff, and footprints (there are rakes, optional, apparently) can be 3 or 4 inches deep.. I'm all for not raking bunkers if you have decent sand, but if not, why have a bunker?? Certainly our place would be better if we removed even more of them.

« **Reply #47 on:** November 18, 2004, 03:23:32 AM »

As promised, here are three pictures of the bunkerless Royal Ashdown Forest.

Par 5 #5 looking back from the green. Nice heathery brook in front of the green.

#6 a par three surrounded by that brook and a great green that throws off anything it doesn’t like.

#10 a brilliantly natural par five.

« **Reply #48 on:** November 18, 2004, 09:59:20 AM »

michael w-p:

i am a member at huntercombe - you are mostly right, but not quite. the course does have bunkers - i think 12 in all, spread over about eight holes. but, if anything that overstates their visibility. huntercombe is a good example of how a course can be short, not have water, have very few bunkers, and still be difficult to score on.

of course, losing bunkers is not always a recommendation. there was a thread a few months back when someone posted pictures showing what thurlestone (sp?) in devon (?) used to look like years ago before they filled in many of the bunkers. now it looks like a bit of field, albeit in a great setting. it looked much better when it had the bunkers.

News:

Mike_Cirba

blasbe1

Marc Haring

cary lichtenstein

Dan Kelly

Mike_Cirba

Marc Haring

Lou_Duran

Dan Kelly

Mike_Young

cary lichtenstein

Marc Haring

Dan Kelly

Mike_Cirba

Brian_Gracely

cary lichtenstein

blasbe1

TEPaul

Tim_Weiman

TEPaul

Tim_Weiman

Lloyd_Cole

Marc Haring

Philip Gawith