[Mike_Cirba]

Mike --

By "appropriate context," I gather that you mean: You wouldn't put a waterfall on a golf course in the middle of the desert. That sort of thing.

Why don't you hold bunkers to the same "appropriate context" standard? Why is it admirable to build "natural-looking" (your expression; I prefer "pseudo-natural" or "imitation natural") bunkers in places where you have to truck in the sand to make bunkers at all?

Because loose soil and erosion are native to EVERYWHERE, Dan...at least everywhere that's not underwater.  I'm a big fan of "native" bunkers, such as the one's Nicklaus did at Old Works, or Dye's at Pete Dye Golf Club.  

I drive by Pennsylvania farmland and I can see where the ravages of wind and rain have worn irregular patches of exposed soil in vulnerable areas.  Nature is NOT a consistent carpet of uniform green grass and other herbiage.  Instead, it is a broken, random pattern of dynamic and shifting and competing forces...which is what bunkers should represent.

A waterfall, by contrast, is somewhat of a natural anomaly.  It's tougher to make one look like it wasn't dropped in from the sky.      

[ForkaB]

Mike

I really like "fartificial" and I like your openmindedness to Dan's iron logic.  As for me, I'm still under the Emperor's gag order (see post #33) so I really can't say much more for the tiem being.......

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Yes, I believe we saw a very fartificial one together and both agreed that it stunk.  

See my response to Dan's iron logic, as well.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, No one has seemingly posted anything in regards to the photo, so feel free to expound on any subject other then that paticular one!

I hereby decree.

[GeoffreyC]

A truly natural bunker

Anyone care to guess where this is? I've posted it before and no cheating looking at properties.

[Dennis_Harwood]

It is remarkable that this long a thread can be created when the question gives the only possible answer--

Under the Rules of Golf "A "bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like."

Therefore, it must be a prepared area from which the natural cover or turf has been removed--whether by the greenskeeper or on the original links by sheep or cows hunkering down and digging into turf covered mounds to seek relief from the winds--

A bunker, by definition MUST be prepared--

All those marvelous pictures showing  natural sand dunes are NOT, by definiition, showing  bunkers-

[Tim_Weiman]

Dennis:

For the purpose of this discussion, do you think it makes much sense to refer to the rules of golf?

[Dennis_Harwood]

Tim--

 Yes--

 Not only do I think terms of the game should be correctly applied, but as we pointed out in a prior thread (re Cypress Point) the method, strategy and manner of play is so different depending on whether an area is a bunker or through the green it is very esential to know whether an area is a hazard or simply through the green--

Its about as confusing refering to a sand dune as a bunker as refering to a "grass bunker" as something set apart from the grass around that area(which of course there is no difference)--

[Tim_Weiman]

Dennis,

Enjoy your rules oriented view of golf architecture. It doesn't seem very enjoyable to me.

Who really cares about "terms" when we are discussing the creation of aesthetic pleasure?

[THuckaby2]

Tim - given this whole thread started really with Mike asking about the definition of the term, Dennis' point makes great sense to me and I'm embarrassed I didn't think of it sooner.  If a sandy spot is purely natural, under the rules of golf by definition it is not a "bunker."  So that pretty much settles Mike's initial query... If it's natural, it's not a bunker - period!

And that's really all Dennis is trying to say.  Definining an area as bunker or not does have rules and strategy implications as well, as discussed on the previous thread citing Cypress Point...

Now as for how these areas "look", well, that's a separate issue really.  But the bottom line is Dennis has purely and perfectly answered Mike's initial query.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm skeptical whether a discussion about rules was really Mike's intent in starting this thread.

Do you really get that from what Mike initially wrote and from the substance of subsequent posts?

Why not let Mike clarify the point himself? If he really intended to discuss rules, fine. But, the thread would certainly lose interest for me as a golf architecture discussion.

[THuckaby2]

I don't think Mike intended to discuss rules at all.

Rules do answer his question, however - not that he's gonna like this answer - I'm sure it's not at all what he was after!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

So, if a bunker exists naturally, as many do at Sand Hills, apparently at Friar's Head, on links courses, at Pacific Dunes, at Prairie Dunes...then it's NOT a bunker under the rules of golf?!?

Methinks the USGA needs to reconsider their official "definition".  

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

I'm with you. The injection of a rules discussion was obviously silly and it was a classic example of taking threads off on tangents that lend nothing to the discussion. Given the freedom people have to start their own threads on topics that may be of interest to them I don't know why people insist on clouding existing threads.

[Forrest Richardson]

On the other hand, tangents are quite nice often. Speaking of hands, did you realize that the human hand contains more than 100,000 individual nerves and......

[Dennis_Harwood]

Mike-- That has been the definition for well over 100 years--long before the USGA was formed--Should we change it to bend to modern architecture?

Tim-- I'm confused(not an uncommon state for me)-- I thought golf architecture was about designing a playing field for the play of a game, not the design of a park through which you stroll(although asthetics are an important feature of the game--and the more pleasant the surrounding the more pleasant the game may be)--

I acknowledge that this should not be a Rules forum, but I fail to understand how one can design the playing field upon which the game is to be played without taking into account, in that design, the Rules under which the game is played.

What a condition is under the Rules dictates strategy for play of a hole, where relief can and can not be taken, where and how you can extract your ball from such a condition, what it is dictates line of play and corresponding risk and reward.

You want to refer to a natural sand dune as a "bunker", go ahead--but you better be sure when you are engaged in a match on that playing field exactly what  that sandy area is, and is not--and be aware that strategy in the play of the game may well be dependant upon what it is.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Geoff,
All this discussion and not even Rcih can give you an answer.


The answer of course is St. Enodoc, and it was going to be my next post on Naturalism and Bunkerism.

I had a great picture of this one but can't find it at the moment. It was courtesy of one Noel Freeman, who I hear at this very moment is in rehab somewhere in Upstat New York, with Jim Reilly after their latest druken bender which saw them being thrown out of many famous NYC hot spots.

Disgusting!

Dennis, You bring up a point regarding the rules of the bunker, but of course me and my Tyranosaurous Rex ways, I wonder what Horace Hutchinson would say?  (Actually I know what he would say, "the main rule is play it as it lies, and everything else is chicken liver! Bunkers should be treacherous pits of dispair, look at the Maiden, the Cader, Sandy Parlour, the Cardinal, Hell and Soup Bowl.") Everyone of these were natural, and over the years refined to their current look. You know, manicured to look pretty. (I prefer the old look honestly)

These bunkers were celebrities back in the days when we played by the real rules--Play it as it lies! The greatest victory was conquering the shot at hand. Luck was King and the allure came from that great mysteries it offered. We all our guilty for eliminating it from this modern age.

(With the exception of Rcih. He is living it as we speak)


Westward Ho!

Deal (For my friends in rehab)

Deal again (In hopes that they give those guys upstate in rehab, electro shock therapy.)

Isle of Wight "Sand Pit"

The Maiden @ RSG

Damian "666" Pascuzzo

[ForkaB]

Tommy

Geoff who?  Childs and his picture of the sand dune at.........?  If so, not a bunker, yet.  Might become one someday if it eats its vegetables.

As for your pictures, you are in a time warp, your highness.  They are a hoot to look at, but have virtually no relevance to the game of golf today.  It's like looking at pictures of college football in the 20's and 30's when they didn't wear helmets.  Kinda neat, and it got us one of our most golf-mad Presidents, but would you want ND to play that way today (ooops, forgot about last weeks game, maybe no helmets would be an improvement for the formerly "Fighting" now, Pacifist Irish!)?

Hate to say it, E, but there are very few if any "pits of despair" today, except for high handicap players, for whom every sand pit, manicured or "dirty" is an a**hole.

And, Dennis is very right.  There are hundreds of millions of natural "bunkers" in the world if you divorce them from the context of the game of golf.  Why do you want to?  Do you not love the game?

[Forrest Richardson]

I do not believe that there is any condition expressed here of which a decent local rule would not cover adequately.

Golf courses are like people — no two are alike. Desert courses, for example, will often define certain parts of the course which lies beyond turf as a formal hazard, even though these areas are mere broken ground and could be played from.

Should there be some odd and occasional exception regarding sand pits, bunkers, sand traps, dunes, sand hollows, etc., then cover it with words. No big deal.

[Mike Hendren]

Tommy,

I find the first photo of Deal to be the most persuasive evidence of natural bunkers.  

Gene,

The photographs of the 18th at Sand Hills on page 61 of The Confidential Guide are strong evidence as well.  The 17th is my favorite short hole in the world (yes, that includes the 16th at CPC ).  I assumed the bunkering there was too perfect to be natural.  I'd love to see a before and after there.  Question:  Have the SH bunkers become more "refined" solely from play?  

Tim,

You are correct, sir.  This is not about the rules, as much as I'd like to claim victory.

To all,

Have I not read somewhere that many of the bunkers on links courses evolved in preferred playing locations as better golfers played from those spots and exposed the underlying sand to the elements?   Perhaps the ultimate men-made bunkers.  Someone, please post the text if you are familiar with it.  

FWIW, I enjoy green-side bunker play more than any aspect of the game.  While my play was less than stellar at SH, I vividly recall getting up and down from a downhill lie in the left-hand greenside bunker at the eleventh with the pin just five paces from that side

Regards,

Mike

[THuckaby2]

So maybe the definition of bunker needs to be changed...

And maybe answering Mike's initial question by using the rules is not what he wanted....

But I fail to see how this it taking this discussion off on a tangent, as Tim W. says.  Dennis answered Mike's query, plain and simple.  What could possibly be wrong with that?

And MikeC - yep - many of those places at Sand Hills, technically you could ground your club.  Same goes for lots of places at Pacific Dunes... think of the right of #13....

It's no big deal, really. I just though this thread was about how to define a natural bunker, or if a thing exists or not.  It's pretty clear in Mike's initial post... Dennis answered the question, whether Mike likes it or not.  Now as for the relevance of bunkers, what types one prefers, which are ugly and which aren't - well, THAT is tangential to the thread!

TH

ps - Mike H. - change the title of the thread to "Natural Sand Trap - an Oxymoron" and Dennis' rules thought has no relevance, and the discussion then goes how you want, because that term is not defined under the rules!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Gentlemen;

I present you with, Exhibit A.  

No, these are most assuredly out of "golf's Past", as Rich tells Tommy he's living within...

These are completely modern, and completely natural.





I think the USGA needs to have another look at that definition.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Why?  Do you think one ought not to be allowed to ground one's club in all those places?

Explain.  I'm at a loss what's wrong with the current definition, other than it f*cks up good ole Mike H'.s thread!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Are you telling me that if you were in either of the bunkers in the first picture, you would ground your club?

Because, the USGA has said that a bunker must be "man made"??

I don't understand.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I can't tell from those pictures really what's involved there.

But I know you know Pacific Dunes.

The area to the right of 13, the huge sand dune/hill?

Hell yes I grounded my club there - I freakin' had to to avoid falling down the hill!  But in any case, I felt like I could do so, because that ain't a bunker.

Therein lies the difference here, and the importance.

That is, unless I am completely missing something... which is very possible....

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()