David:

We did struggle to build that bunker to achieve what we wanted.  I knew that some balls would try to get past the bunker on the right and then roll back into it, but I hoped others would have enough momentum to get past.

Mike Clayton told me that Geoff Ogilvy drove well past it when they played a year ago, so rest easy, it can be done!

Tom,

I have no doubt that Geoff can drive well past the bunker,  but given his standard trajectory I am not sure he would be able to run the ball past the bunker.

As a hypothetical, lets say you went back to build the second course and realised that players could not skirt the ball around the bunker to the right.  Would that make it a candidate for a bunker to be removed?  Or would you try and rework the slope a bit?  Or would you be happy to leave it there and let it play as is?  

Mark:

I like that idea for 12, the bunkers on the tenth at Riviera are like that, if I'm understanding what you are describing.

David:

I would love to be able to play the Gunnamatta course a few times and see if that bunker (and all the rest) work as intended.  Unfortunately, "hypothetical" is a good choice of words to describe that scenario, I still don't know the real status of the second 18.

Patrick:

I might use the word "hard" in relation to a single shot, but more commonly in relation to the difficulty of making par, so you are right it does sometimes depend on the length of the hole.  I think the 16th at Pacific Dunes is one of the hardest holes there, even though it's relatively short, and certainly the recovery at the sixth is hard if you've missed the green.  But most people would name 4, 7 and 13 for obvious reasons and that's why they are the first handicap holes on the card.

Tom Doak,

Isn't "Hard" mostly related to distance ?

Doesn't distance distort the evaluation of a "hard" hole ?

When people ask you, "what's the hardest hole at PacDunes ?", how do you respond ?

I think the 11th hole at PacDunes is one of the hardest golf holes on the course, but maybe some will feel that it's not very hard, kinda like the 6th at NGLA ?

I kept hole-by-hole scoring stats on a few of my favorite courses, and found that difficulty correlated very strongly with length.

I know you asked Tom, but I've played Pacific a bunch of times.  #13 is the hardest hole into the summer (north) wind, and #4 into the south wind.  If it's really blowing, both #7 and #18 are very tough with a south or storm wind.  #11 is tricky with either wind, though tougher into a summer breeze.  I try to keep my tee shot as low as possible there.

I've got one: hole 10, Pinehurst #2, the volcano-like fairway bunker on the right side of the fairway, about 250 yards from blue tees:


I can see a bunker there forcing the tee shot to the left, bringing the left-hand bunker down the fairway into play, but it's volcano height means one must make quite an effort to get the ball in there!

The only reason I could see for it being raised is to "define" the hole from the tee. Somebody please enlighten me: is there a legitimate reason for this bunker?

Mark

Here's one I would remove that would pretty drastically affect the play of the hole, I think: the right-front greenside bunker at Sutton Bay No. 4.

I would replace it with some gentle bumps and hollows and maintain the area as fairway.

For those who haven't had the immense pleasure of Sutton Bay:

No 4. is a sometimes-reachable, sometimes-unreachable par 5 (depending on the tees you play, and the wind) that features a downhill approach to a dramatically front-to-back-sloping green. There's a ground-game opening to the left quarter or third of the green -- but any attempt to reach the right two-thirds to three-quarters of the green must fly the bunker -- and with anything more than a short-iron in hand, there's not much hope of stopping an approach above the low area at the back (bottom) of the green.

I think the hole would be much more fun if there were no sand in front of the green, so that guys could go at the WHOLE green via the bounce and roll, with any club in the bag. And anything that came up short would produce the need for a very delicate chip shot.

Actually, I think it's two bunkers. I'd take 'em both out.

Mark:

I am confident from looking at your picture that the purpose of that bunker was to discourage players from spraying the ball back toward #9, in the days before trees grew up between the holes.  If you look back on aerial photos of early American courses you will find many such bunkers, anywhere from 150 to 200 yards from the original tees.  (The tee at Pinehurst has been moved back from its original location.)  The bunker is built up so you can't see over it to the other hole and you therefore won't think subconsciously of hitting your shot over that way.

Inwood had a lot of those bunkers, some of which are still lost in the trees between holes.

Tom Doak,

I only ask one favor.

I want to be listening in to the conversation when a member or the Green Chairman suggests removing one or more of the bunkers on a golf course that you have designed  

I tend to believe in Ross's philosophy that no bunker is misplaced.

But, my greater concern lies within the domino theory.

Once a club removes one feature, it becomes open season on the golf course.

Successive members, committtees, boards and Presidents will then begin to exercise their "right of entitlement" to reconfigure the golf course to their liking (game) and that usually spells disaster for the architectural integrity of the golf course.

The caveat I might add would be:
If the original architect, without undue pressure from owners or golfers, feels he erred and needs to remove or relocate a bunker, then, he should do so.

However, a caveat to my caveat.

If an architect's design philosophy has changed over time, I wouldn't entertain that process.

Where would you ADD bunkers to any of your existing courses ?

There are probably a couple more which are superfluous, but if you want to pick an individual I'll try to explain its purpose.  

Tom, would like to hear your thoughts regarding the first bunker on the 17th at Kidnappers.



In a Southerly it is virtually unreachable.  It does somewhat frame the dogleg but is deceptively offset to the right of the actual corner of the dogleg, which is hidden in a valley containing waist deep rough.  Any drive hit near this line bounces down and hard right and is lost.  Looking from the tee it appears as though one has hit a near perfect drive.  What a horrible feeling when one gets to the top of that bluff and sees this hidden death trap!

I now know from experience to go nowhere near this line of play but for any first-timers they are looking at some major disappointment.  Virtually the same holds true for the tee shot on 18 (except no bunker) as many a well hit drive bounces down and hard right into the same type of blind canyon with waist deep rough.

Although I previoulsy suggested one at Huntingdon Valley earlier, I'll propose another.  The bunker just short and left of the 5th green at Shinnecock Hills. This was put in by Mitchell, I think at the suggestion of Dick Wilson in the early 1960s.  This completely eliminates the possibiltiy of short hitters running the ball of the left to right slope onto the green.  Flynn had a sandy waste area well short of the bunker location that challenged players to hit a precise ground approach.  The Wilson/Mitchell bunker precludes this.

Tom D,
How about a course other than your own where you wouldn't change a thing?  

Wayne:

If you read The Confidential Guide, one of the courses where I said I would never change a thing was Merion.  

Patrick:

I've been working on a list of favorite holes from our various courses for my web site, which is in sore need of updating.  In some cases, it's really hard to choose.  I have been thinking about Pacific Dunes the most lately because I am trying to get back to work on my book ... from there, the consensus "best" holes are the 11th and 13th, but my favorite holes are probably the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 8th.  I'd tell you why, but then you wouldn't have to buy the book.

James:

I have no idea how to answer that.  I do most of my routings off the topo to start, and then adjust them by walking the land ... I think most architects do.  When I am drawing them on the topo map I will frequently draw them with bunkers, but only about half those bunkers make the final cut, replaced with others decided upon in the field as we have gotten to know the site better.

So, for me, there is no clear distinction between the two.

James Morgan,

What leads you to conclude that Ross wouldn't add more bunkers ?

10th hole Bethpage Black right-side fairway bunker.

Anyone in it can't reach the green and will always lay-up anyway. If it were an area of rough, more would consider the gamble and the area would then become far more of a risk/reward decision.

Phil,

  I respectfully disagree with you.  Firstly, though, did Tillinghast have this bunker in his original design of Bethpage Black?  

  I disagree with you strictly on your statement that rough in lieu of the bunker may cause players to go for it.  

 You know as well as I do that the rough out at the Black Course seems to gobble golf balls anyway.  It's hard to hit more than a 6 or 7 iron out of the rough there.  

  Conversely, I think the bunker provides more of a "go-or-no-go" proposition, all depending on the lie the golfer finds themselves with upon reaching their ball.