[Ran Morrissett]

When did fairway bunkers become so shallow? Isn't their invention an American one?  

If the purpose of a bunker is provide risk/reward opportunities, then a shallow bunker does not satisfactorily accomplish that goal.

Sure, in certain cases, an architect can't go to 3-5 deep because of what's underneath (rock, etc.) but there is no excuse 99% of the time.

I recently had a quick tour of Mark Mungeam's EXCELLENT work at the North Course at Olympia Fields where he returned many of the modernized bunkers (i.e. they had been made shallow) back to where Willie Park had them, which was 3-5 feet deep. Once again, the golfer enjoys a real sense of challenge and is forced to think what is/isn't a good risk and also where is the best place to miss a ball.

My impression of pre-WWII bunkers is that they were deeper than their counterparts of today. Even at a course like Ekwanok that was always meant as a summer retreat for the well off (and elderly), Travis still had the bunkers deep to the point where ladders were required on more than one hole. Today, even at a course like Ekwanok which cherishes its history, the bunkers are much shallower.

Same at Yale GC, which was built for college students and faculty, and yet, Rulewich feels the need to soften the challenge of the bunkers.

Have golfers in America become too soft? I simply do not understand how a decent golfer would enjoy playing a course on a regular basis if it doesn't enjoy meaningful hazards that create risk/reward options.

Cheers to deep fairway bunkers!

[TEPaul]

Ran:

Very interesting post and one I have a lot to say on--not now though as I've got to go. I don't really think what you say is always true though and certainly should be looked at for evidence of the evolution from the penal school to the more strategic school (ie; the strategic school may have had shallower fairway bunkers intentionally to create situations of a more complete but daring recovery!!!)

It certainly looked to me like Cypress had many very shallow fairway bunkers on opening. They are remarkably low profile but beautifully lacy and detailed. Was this MacKenzie's technique of visual intimidation but not necessarily actual penalization??

You will like Merion's new fairway bunkers then--they are unusually deep--much deeper than before--and they make the course play harder, no doubt, for those that get in them!!

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

Amen to your post! Too many bunkers today are nothing more than cosmetic creations -- they have little, if any, strategic implications that would cause players to really think twice on choosing an aggressive line of attack.

There are clear exceptions -- I enjoyed the bunkering at Pac Dunes and I have had the pleasure in walking The Knoll (Boonton, NJ) with George Bahto and learned of his upcoming plans to deepen the many bunkers that guard the holes at this unique Charles Banks course.

I would also recommend that bunkers be moved from periphery positions to locations that are in the middle of fairways. Today's equipment does not cause the same issues of years ago when missing shots wide right or left was the real predicament.

Bunkers need to represent some sort of clear element -- too many new courses that I visit today have them in places no one in his right mind would ever hit them. They must have some direct connection to the way people will actually play the course and not be a sideshow.

Regards,

[Bill_Spellman]

I request some clarification and definition of intent as to the amount of penalty that a fairway bunker should hand out. Should a fairway bunker on a long par 4 or 5 be the same depth as one on a short hole or set closer to a green on a par 5? Does a shorter course (comparing yardage) require better defense than a long course? Is the penalty 1/2 of a stroke or more? Should an excellent recovery be negated by the fact that the bunker is too deep to allow the distance needed?

comment and clarification requested.

PS: I am also confused ( uneducated as to the definiton of a "Redan" . I have seen referneces to a "reverse redan" and such. please clarify and refer to some holes that fit these definitions.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

American golfers have become soft, and in eternal pursuit of fairness.

Yet they love to visit Pine Valley, Garden City Golf Club, National Golf Links of America and other tests where bunkers still remain a serious HAZARD.

I witnessed the softening process at a course in south Florida where the bunkers had substantial lips, significant impediments to advancing the ball a good distance.  A green chairman came in, filled the bunkers with sand sloping flush to the lips after he softened the lips considerably.

This now allowed golfers to routinely putt out of green side bunkers, and to hit 3-woods or long irons from the fairway bunkers with immunity.

When I asked why he made these changes, he stated that they were unfair, that you couldn't hit the green from the fairway bunker.  I told him, they were designed so you couldn't, you're not supposed to, that's why they're there, to place greater demand on an accurate tee shot, and penalize an erratic tee shot.

He further stated that many of the women golfers had complained about the difficulty of extracting themselves from the bunkers.
I told him, to advise them, to take some bunker lessons from the Pro.

The growing popularity of golf amongst women may have been a contributing factor to softening bunkers at the country club and development level.

Ask yourself, if you were spending millions of your own money to build and develop a golf/residential community for couples, would you build bunkers that are difficult, if not impossible for women to get out of.
How successful do you think golf communities would be, with that type of bunkering ?

So the answer is, the feminization of Golf !

[George Pazin]

Couldn't agree more with the posts above.

Part of the problem also lies in the great range between different levels of players. For a good player, a shallow bunker poses virtually no challenge - it's certainly easier than hitting out of the rough. However, for a mediocre or poor golfer, bunkers of any depth are a major problem. The irony of this is that deeper bunkers would add strategic interest to the better player, while placing little additional burden on the weaker player.

Fairness is the worst concept that ever struck golf.

Bill Spellman -

You can find excellent definitions of "redan" & many other terms in the terrific feature interview with George Bahto. I'm still really looking forward to his book, which, last I heard, was rumored to be near completion.

[aclayman]

Truely an uphill battle since the couple of fairway bunkers I've heard proposed lately, are to stop balls from going into hazards.

[RobertWalker]

Bill Spellman,
David Eger wrote and I photographed an article in the Golf Journal called the COMPLEAT REDAN in January 1994. It is a geat read, and answers a bunch of questions about Redans. You can probably get a copy from the golf house. Call 800222USGA.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Ran I agree but note there are different levels on penalty. Any fairway bunker shot is tougher than a fairway shot, therefroe some level of penalty is found. See Cypress comment. However there is a place and a good one for fairway bunkers that are ineffect a +1 for the player and should be avoided much like a water hazzard. I miss seeing more of that incorporated into modern design.

[Bill Miller]

As a golf course contractor/shaper, there are many valid points made on both sides of the coin. I think that there are so many considerations to think of as a designer/shaper. ie: style of course(links, country club, executive, etc.), future maintenance budget, clientele,etc. One has to take into consideration all of these criteria when building bunkers. The length of the second or third shot I think is a huge factor. I hate to use the "fairness" word but for a long second or third shot out of a fairway bunker I think it is only fair to the golfer(no matter the skill level) to have a less severe sand shot, and visa versa.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran,

Could you tell us more about Olympia Fields?  I recently played Maidstone and am on a serious Willie Park kick.  Was he as good inland?

My only other Park experience was at Greate Bay (formerly Sands CC) near Ocean City, NJ, and the original stuff of his that still exists there is quite good, as well.  I did get a glimpse of his Philmont (South) course the other day while playing the North (Flynn), but it didn't seem quite up to his standard.  

From my limited exposure, he seems to be one of the first "strategists" on these shores.

By the way, I'd concur with Tom Paul's assessment of the Merion bunkers being deeper since the restoration.  A few of us spent a bit of time playing out of them today and although their look has changed markedly, I don't think any of us would say they are easier...they're probably more difficult generally, if more predictable.  

[jglenn]

Bill,

If I were you, I wouldn't be too concern about apropriate levels of penalty and depth-of-bunker vs. length-of-hole ratios.

I'm of the opinion that, generally, it doesn't matter where a bunker is located, how big it is, how small, how wide, how narrow, how deep, how shallow, how beautiful, how ugly, how penal or how friendly.

It's the player's job to avoid it, and to deal with it if he doesn't.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeremy,

You've been hanging around this discussion group too long!  Are you sure that Tommy N. isn't writing your stuff these days?  

Seriously, I completely agree with your post and feel that variety is a big part of the allure of bunkering.  After all, the darn things are supposed to be inconsistent, uncertain hazards and any type of formulaic bunkering seems to diminish that purpose to some extent.

[Bill Miller]

Jeremy,
I totally agree with the fact that the golfer puts his/herself in the predicament therefore they should deal with it. No matter the size, depth, or appearance, the point of the bunker is hazard. By no means am I encouraging cookie-cutter bunker design either. There is nothing better than implementing various bunker design philosophies on one project. Certain bunkers fit better in certain instances and the depth, size, shape, and overall look of the complex should be dictated solely by the situation on that particular hole.

[jglenn]

Bill,

Oops, I didn't realise there where two Bills here.  My original post was direct towards Mr. Spellman.

Anyway, I agree with your post, although there was one sentence that kind of sent a red flag waving in my head.  

Its the part about mixing bunker design philosophies that might have me worried a bit.  While a variety and certain randomness of bunkers is to be strived for, I think it's important to underline that we should not end up with a "melting pot" of philosophies or looks.

In other words, bunkers are like the holes on a golf course.  Strive for variety, while maintaining a consistency in the overall "feel" and "look" and "design" throughout the course.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly, but hopefully you know what I mean - If only because it's probably what you were trying to say as well...  

[Bill Miller]

Jeremy,

"Philosophies" was the wrong term for sure, I appreciate the input and the overall interaction on this topic. It is always a pleasure and a benefit to share ideas with others. I feel very fortunate to be in this business and one of the key and underlying reasons is the fact that no two sites are the same and the greatest, most enjoyable challenge is putting it all together to form a diverse yet cohesive end product.

I will never stop learning in this business and for that I am grateful.

[ed_getka]

I agree that a variety of bunkering is desirable and not every bunker should be an inescapable pit. In general I think a lot of bunkering these days is boring. The best fairway bunkering to me is placed near the ideal line of play. If one takes the risk of going near the bunker he is rewarded with the better angle into the green. If bunkered then at least a half a stroke should be exacted (unable to reach the green). Not every hole should be like this but a few times a round makes for some exciting golf. The other bunkering technique that I like in the fairway is echelon bunkering on the diagonal where again the ideal line is the most challenging, while lesser players still have the thrill of challenging the bunkering as their own game dictates. I think Tom Doak did an excellent job with his bunkering at Pacific Dunes.

[BCrosby]

Interesting thread.

Somewhere in Ross's GNFM he says that fairway bunkers should become more severe the farther they are off the fairway.

Makes sense to me.  Missing the center line/ line of charm by a couple of feet should not be full half shot penalty.  Missing it by 10 yards should be.

I also agree with comments above that we badly underestimate the influence that women players have had on the removal of fairway bunkers specifically and the evolution of a golf course generally.  

I can't think of any way to elaborate on the point that would not get me into serious PC hot water, but there is no question that a lot of bunkers have been removed over the years solely to appease unhappy women players.  On one course I know something about, I'd guess that about half of the Ross fairway bunkers were removed at the behest of women.

[JerryK]

I agree that fairway bunkers should be penal but I have seen more and more of them which have steep, soft faces and the ball plugs in the face of the bunker.  This might be justifiable in a greenside bunker but I cannot see how it can be justified in a fairway bunker.  Should fairway bunkers require you to go sideways, or even backwards, to get out, or should the penalty for the risk be that you are no longer able to reach the green?  In most circumstances when you play short of a fairway bunker your next shot is at least 3 clubs more than if you had cleared the bunker.  If you now have to go back or to the side the risk seems almost too severe.  I don't think that it is fair to make the penalty for failing to clear a fairway bunker equal to the penalty for hitting a shot into a water hazard.  Fairway bunkers can restrict your club selection but should they be so penal that you cannot advance the ball forward at all.  

[Paul Richards]

For those of you interested in seeing what
REAL fairway bunkers should look like, you should check out Ganton, in England.  

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

Couldn't agree with you more when you say
that Mark Mungeam did some excellent bunker
work at Olympia Fields.  

One can only hope that the leadership at OF
will not change it back, after the Open.  

Having heard a lot of grumbling by members
and their guests that "this bunkering is
only for the pros at the Open" and "members
shouldn't have to play this tough a course
every day", makes you wonder if the
complaining gets too vocal, will they end up
modifying them somehow?

Unfortunately, as some have observed here, most of these folks are used to the "watered-down", American style of shallow bunkering,
but Olympia Fields makes a strong case for
the more classic style.

[ed_getka]

Fairway bunkers with steep, soft faces are poor maintenance not a design feature to penalize a player. I think that if a fairway bunker is going to exact a stroke then there should be plenty of room to avoid it with the cost being a less desirable angle into the green. The tougher approach ideally would make flirting with the penal bunker a worthwhile risk/reward scenario. A fairway bunker should be penal for a reason, and there should be options to avoid it. Shallow fairway bunkers are a waste of time for most golfers under a 10 handicap IMHO, as the shot is not demanding once it is learned.

[Chris_Hervochon]

I got one for you guys...pot bunkers, the kind with the sod walls.  Make them relatively small (well, smaller than todays relatively large, shallow, "modern" bunkers), deep (3-8 ft. deep depending on length of approach) and have them set along the edge of the fairway that gently slopes towards them.  Maintenance costs go down, with no extra burden placed on the high-handicappers b/c they can't get out of fairway traps anyway.  Maybe then they would at least wedge it out like they should anyways.  At least then we would have hazards!  However, they should not be so deep on long par 4's.  Just my opinion.

[Ron Kern]

 I visited Olympia Fields this summer as well, spending the day touring both courses and playing the "US Open course."  The fairway bunkering was deepened in response to criticism during the US Senior Open that the bunkering was not penal enough.  It is now.  The least lofted club I was able to use to escape a fairway bunker was a 9 iron. The very steep faces are soft and a shot flying into a face easily plugs and the ball possibly even disappears.  The bunker positioning was quite good, providing very narrow landing areas and risk and reward possibilities from the tournament tees.  The fairway grass lines will be altered, at the USGA's request, which will eliminate the risk / reward character of the bunkering. The bunkers will be flanking (penal) hazards rather than carry (strategic) hazards.  It was interesting to see that many bunkers were added at 300 yards.  The golf course has been lengthened nearly as much as the property will allow.  The 18th (which will be played as # 9 in the US Open as there are too many trees around the green not allowing for enough bleachers and the obligatory corporate boxes) putting surface has been slightly altered to lessen the slope so hopefully it will have four hole locations!  It should be a good test and an exciting tournament - there are several potential birdie holes.  I have also heard of the membership rumblings about the bunker depth - for "everyday American club play" they are pretty severe.

The superintendent is doing an absolutely fantastic job - he truly appreciates the spirit of the game and how his job relates to that spirit.

I too wish that fairway bunkering, or any other bunkering for that matter, could be more severe, but I doubt that us Yanks could handle it - we don't like posting those double or triple bogey on our medal play scorecards.  At Cruden bay I had to hit the ball into the face of a bunker just so it could bounce off the face into an area of the bunker where I could make a swing to extract it.  Playing my good friend in match play, my triple really didn't matter.  The other aspect of the match was that even on that hole, while I was in jail, my opponent could encounter such a similar fate on the same hole with a careless or ill advised strategy and I would've been back in the hole - he did play safe away from the bunkers and won the hole with a bogey.  For all of us that have endured (and enjoyed and appreciated) the "Scottish Torture" we understand that a bunker should truly be a hazard, that extraction should be the first order of business and that a player must execute a meaningful strategy.  In America we see our best players hitting 220 yard 6 irons out the "hazard" right onto the putting surface.  Operators, always wanting to maintain pace of play, think fairway bunkering only slows up play and therefore should be minimized.  Can't be true as in Scotland, Dwight and I had no trouble playing in three hours on foot while encountering many bunkers along the way.

[Steve C]

Ran,

No doubt the modern player is soft. Also no doubt that many modern architects are somewhat compelled to cater to women and real estate developers and course operators who want "fair" to mean "easy."

Although there aren't many first rate venues here in Dallas, I can tell you that the oldest, Brook Hollow Golf Club - Tillinghast, 1920, and host to the Mid-Am a few years back - is one of them. Fairway bunkers there are indeed hazards...they penalize you for making a poor shot or a poor decision. Every single one of those bunkers is deep and more often than not will cost a stroke.

One of the sad aspects of "updating" courses is making them more "playable" - undoing the intent and execution of the original designer, often resulting in a wholesale change in a course's personality. When it's time to soften up the course, those deeper fairway bunkers are usually the first to go.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()