[Tom_Doak]

An interesting batch of replies.

I'm as guilty of overbunkering as anyone.  There are 95-100 bunkers on each of the courses at Stonewall.  I don't even know how many there are at Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle where they were so easily created.  (At Barnbougle we created many of them for playability -- digging a bunker was less expensive than irrigating grass and more playable than the marram grass which dominated the site at the start.)

I do think bunkers tend to dominate the discussion of golf architecture more than they are worth, because they are easy things to discuss.  Most people (clients, panelists, enthusiasts, even associates) have a hard time making real-world suggestions for how a golf course should have been routed differently, or how a green should have been contoured ... but it's easy to suggest there should have been another bunker somewhere.

I suspect most architects could point to bunkers that they thought added little to their designs, but were put in to appease the client.  Not that all suggestions are bad ones ... Mike Keiser suggested a couple at Pacific Dunes that I'm glad he talked me into, and also talked me out of building a couple that I'm equally glad about.

Pat, I will concede your point that St. Andrews is so interesting largely because it has so many bunkers.  (It's also interesting because of all the little contours in the approaches and the greens, but there aren't a dozen people I know who know the Old Course well enough to discuss those.)  Still, none of the bunkers on the Old Course are there for visual reasons ... a lot of them you can't even see.

[tonyt]

I wonder if perhaps if it is because bunkers are a feature that can often be easier for the golfer to analyse and summarise in terms of their effect after one or two rounds on a course. On the other hand, a fairway contour, or a minor mound of native grass gently tied in to nearby topography as a subtle magnet or ball diverter or other type of feature may not be understood for a lot longer. Genius in themselves perhaps?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good point about the ease of the layman understanding bunkers, versus routing.  I can put my thumb in front of my eye to block my view to a bunker, to evaluate whether it can go visually, and hit into purposely to find out if it can go from a play perspective.  

I suppose its easy enough to go scrambling through woods, etc. to see what other holes may have been out there.  But, its hard, without going through the whole routing excercise to know what you may have given up.

I think Ross wrote something about it being easy to over bunker with useless bunkers that serve no purpose.  I'm not sure exactly what he meant, but I suppose modern architects would put each bunker to the test of how many good purposes it serves, perhaps giving double value to one area, if it served that purpose extremely well.

Bunkers can be aesthetic, targets, frames, master, supplementary or random hazards, save features, keeping balls out of other less desireable areas.  They can be safety features that keep golfers out of ravines, etc.  They can also be environmental buffers, filters, or low maintenance zones.

Generally, I like to use bunkers where they can serve more than one purpose to consider them truly useful, and cost efficient.  Then, I don't have to worry about the ghost of Ross coming back to whisper "overbunkered with useless bunkers" in my ear as I sleep......

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Have you ever found yourself putting in bunkers not to frame, so much as to complete a good composition?

Sometimes I find it like planting trees as taught in landscape architecture school -- we have to build bunkers in threes to make them look good.  [Not talking about three in one space, but three in different places which look good together.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

I just reread several of the answers saying it would vary with the topgraphy, etc.  Quite vague in some cases, just like my grandmothers recipe for bananna nut bread.  How much sugar does it need, I asked her.

"Just enough," she would always say.  Experience as a chef taught her what that was.

Does bunker number really depend on topography in any case other than a sandy site like Pacific Dunes where they occur almost naturally?

For the most part, bunkers are easily built in any up slope.  In one natural sense, then, a rolling site would call for more bunkers because of more natural opportunity, while they will look more artificial on a flat site.  On the other hand, the same natural slopes are more likely to work as part of the hole, while the flat site needs artificial hazards for character.

Topography also affects bunker placement in terms of vision.  A nice downhill hole often calls out for dramatic bunkering, in number and shapes, because ithey are easily seen.  A flat or uphill hole avoids them, or simplifiies the shapes for better vision.  They also avoid multiple bunkers, as seeing bunkers past the first one is always difficult.

Thus, a hilly site may very naturally create variety of bunkered and non bunkered holes.  On a flat site, we have to fight the tendency to repetition.

In the end, isn't really just a function of architects choice?  And isn't that usually a function of what kind of course the owner asked him/her to build?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oops, Tom, we crossed in the mail, so to speak.

Yes, I do look at the total composition.  I love the Cypress Point look, where the bunkers are seemingly random, but each has a purpose.

I have to admit, they use in threes thing is either true, or I am brainwashed to believe it is true.  On a slight dogleg right, for instance, I may put a bunker on the left side of the green, because it looks good as a target bunker as part of the composition on the tee shot.  In essence, if I have bunkers staggered on each side of the fairway, I get a free compositional bunker out of the greenside bunker without having to build another one on the fairway.

Another effect I repeat is what I call the Christmas Tree effect - the bunkers are spread wider at the front of the hole, and narrow gradually to lead the eye to the green.

I also fight the odd number tendency, lloking hard to find places and patterns where two, four, six, eight, or even ten or twelve bunkers on a hole looks good.  

Not quite on topic, but tonight I am rereading the Confidential Guide while watching the Stars and Canucks on late night televsion.  This after reading the Links by Hunter and some Colt the last game.  I'm sorry in advance if tomorrow's posts discuss bunkers, and the phrase, "He shoots, he scores!" creeps in!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak & Jeff Brauer,

Have you ever found yourself second guessing your bunker work on a given hole, and have you removed or relocated a bunker after some introspection ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Jack Snyder designed the par 3 nine holer, Civitan ('61), here in Farmington with no bunkers. It has remarkable character and the oval faces are no push-over.

Also, the front side at Riverview ('54) had it's first bunker added in '62. I believe it now has a total of 6 bunkers.

The golf does not suffer, IMHO. And especuiially on a day like today, with gust to 38 mph.  

We are talking FUN!

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I like to see bunkers used where they have a discernable purpose. I have this annoying habit of looking at bunkers and asking "what purpose does this bunker serve?" I know this is a little too simplistic, but that's the way I see it. Same with water and trees, by the way. In my view, most courses I see have too many trees, bunkers,water hazards, houses, paved cart paths, rock retaining walls, o.b. stakes, and ball washers.

It is hard for me to imagine 100 useful bunkers on any course.  I am a big fan of Donald Steel's Cherokee Plantation course. It has only 25-30  wonderful bunkers, but each seems to have a easily recognized influence on how you elect to play the hole.  Pete Dye's course at Colleton River has more than 200 bunkers, many of which make no sense to me. I think they must have paid him by the bunker. To a lesser extent, the same can be said about his course at Barefoot Landing, and to an even lesser extent his Honors Course.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim,

I used to be like you; at High Pointe I remember reviewing after a few years all the bunkers and whether I had ever been in them or not.  But, not everything on my courses is designed around my own game.

We don't put in bunkers without any purpose, although sometimes, as I explained above, the purpose has more to do with visual effects than whose golf ball might actually land there.

Some would scoff at that statement, but in truth, most bunkers have far more effect visually (making you think about playing around them) than physically (actually trapping balls).  Just one example:  I've played the Road hole maybe a dozen times, but I've only been in the Road bunker once.  Lots of bunkers in odd positions have a subtle but profound effect on how people play a hole, even if they almost never get in them.

Patrick:  I've erased bunkers during construction, and moved them around right or left; I probably erase a couple on every project.  There are certainly some I look back on and think I could have done without, but I don't think I've yet gone back to one of my courses and taken a bunker out.  It costs a couple thousand dollars to remove a bunker and sod it back over, so it would take quite a few years before the reduced maintenance costs made it worthwhile.  I would be more inclined to change one if I thought it was slowing down play, or causing people to hit toward a danger spot.

Last year we did go back to Beechtree and break up the big fairway bunker on the sixth hole into three smaller bunkers, at the superintendent's request, to ease maintenance of it.  [There was a lot of sand slippage on a huge exposed face.]

The Village Club of Sands Point has gone back and added about five bunkers to their course, with my (unenthusiastic) blessing.  But, they didn't want to wait for us to oversee the work, unfortunately.

Jeff:  You are absolutely right that the number of bunkers is simply a matter of architect's choice ... I just think most of us are choosing too high these days.  What was it Simpson wrote?  

"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than overdecoration and the crowding of artificial hazards."

How come none of these panelists write reviews like that?

[Andrew Summerell]

Strategy is not about bunkers. It's about giving the golfer the option of the more difficult drive for the easier approach or the easier drive for the more difficult approach.

Alot of holes give different options for different golfers i.e. one option for the guy who drives 280, one for the guy who drives 250 one for the guy who drives 230 & so on. A truely strategic hole will give multiple options for each of those guys. Sometimes bunkers get in the way of this kind of strategy.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I have no problem with bunkers that have mess with the player's mind. That meets my definition of a legitimate "purpose".  Just don't over-do it. Your example of the road hole bunker is a good one, although I suggest that it has other purposes, primarily to discourage the player form shying away from the road.

My favorite example is the bunker just forward and right of the second hole on Pinehurst #2.  My greatest fear on that hole is hitting my second shot in that bunker, which almost always results in a double bogey (maybe worse if the pin is back right). I rarely wind up in that bunker, but I sure hit some goofy shots to be sure I avoid it.

[Donnie Beck]

Pat,

I agree with you that very few sites provide truly natural bunkers. If I remember correctly 4 and 12 at Friars Head are both par 3's. 4 has long strip bunkering and 12 is just more heavily bunkered by the green. I think both are very natural. Then again Friar's Head is an extraordinary site and you could probably break the ground anywhere on the site and have a very natural bunker. Let's take Garden City as another example. It is a very flat site. The greens are an extension of the fairways, yet it has numerous deep pit bunkers, which I also love. Both have great deep bunkers, but very different styles. Another thing I love about both sites is the randomness of their bunkers. What I can't stand is the modern shallow flashed sand trap placed is standard locations. That I find very dull and in my opinion I would love to see far less of them on any golf course.

[Donnie Beck]

Donny,

You say you would love to see more nasty little bunkers, as well as closely cut areas around greens. i admire that as well, but have  always heard that this makes the supers job that much tougher, as a super can you talk about the added maintenance that is required for both those extra little bunkers and the closely mown areas?

jason

Jason,

I agree the close cut areas would require more work, but I feel the added challenge and variety to the golf course would outweigh the costs. The close cut areas would require more aerification and top dressing to keep the turf firm. They also would have to be mown more frequently. As far as more traps they would require more labor to hand rake. Although if it were up to me that would be as little as possible. I think modern bunkers are way too manicured. Bunkers are supposed to be hazards aren't they!

[Robert Thompson]

I'll follow Mr. Paul's comments about Steel's work at Redtail, near St. Thomas, Ont. Faced with an interesting piece of land, a small budget and the owners' decision to make the course quite challenging, Steel appears to have opted to use very strategic, and judicious bunkering.
This appears largely to be due to the fact the course, with its narrow fairways, was already tough enough without more bunkers scattered around the property. It was smart design and holds up nicely -- despite the fact the course was built prior to the distance swing in balls and clubs.
That said, Mr. Doak's question is intriguing in another aspect. With the slowdown in the golf construction business (for everyone but Tom, it would seem), I wonder if new course budgets on a go forward basis might be tighter, and therefore require more careful consideration of bunkering due to construction and maintenance costs.
I know that the costs associated with the up keep and construction of the bunker work of one well known Canadian designer has probably hurt him when it comes to new work. His bunkers, with their wondrous flashed faces, look great, but cost a bundle to maintain. In the end, that really appears to have impacted his ability to generate new work from some cost-conscious clients.
Perhaps we’re heading back to an era where some bunkers simply get filled in due to maintenance costs. I know many restoration experts have spent the last few years putting bunkers back to where they once were, and maybe clubs will create a new market for this sort of work in a couple of decades.

- Robert

[Jeff_Mingay]

Donnie,

Your post above is a very interesting compliment to Coore and Crenshaw and crew. As I understand, where holes 4 and 12 are at Friar's Head was an old, flat sod farm. I don't think that particular area of the property had any potential for natural bunkers like the dunes area, nearer the water does. I'm pretty sure those holes and those bunkers are artifically created.

Again, your comments are a tribute to the design and constrution work there, at Friar's Head.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donnie  Beck,

While I really like the great majority of the bunkers at GCGC,
I'd have a hard time convincing anyone that they were found naturally, just lying there, waiting to be discovered.

As artificial and constructed as they are, they seem to fit/blend in marvelously creating unique, interesting strategic and tactical challenges.

But, their existance is only made possible by the drainage of the Hempstead Plain.

[Donnie Beck]

Pat,
Again I agree. I used those as two very contrasting styles of bunkers that I really liked, to make the point that you can have manufactured bunkers that fit a different properties well. An example of bunkers which I don't like are the bunkers at Fox Hopyard. They look like they were installed as an after thought.

[Donnie Beck]

Jeff,

You are correct. Those holes are on the flat portion of land. I agree C&C did an OUTSTANDING job to get all of those lower holes to blend in seemlessly with the rest of the course. My hat's off to them. Great Job!

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom Doak, it's funny that you mention Road Bunker...I've played the Road Hole over 30 times now, and I'm pretty sure I've never been in it. I think I can say the same thing about Strath Bunker, too. Both are great examples of bunkers which are so penal as to ruthlessly dictate your strategy on a hole - you have to avoid them, period, or pay at least an effective one-shot penalty. There's something about that sort of hazard which I find to be just about perfect, especially when used in conjunction with an alternate, perceived-to-be "lesser of two evils" hazard(s) on the opposite side (the road and roadside embankment on the Road Hole, or Hill Bunker and the bank behind the green at the Eden Hole) of the target.

And to relate this point to your original question: the Road Hole, which possesses arguably the most famous and most strategic bunker in the entire golfing world, has only the one bunker on it, doesn't it? Warrants mentioning...

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

I don't think you can view the Road Hole bunker in a singular context.

The shed and out of bounds that parallel the entire hole are significant factors which interact with the single bunker to provide a variety of strategies and consequences.

If you eliminated the shed, hotel, pathway, wall and out of bounds, the play and strategy provided by the hole would be altered dramatically

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"Darren,
I don't think you can view the Road Hole bunker in a singular context."

Pat:

You really are getting like my Grandfather in how you just continuously repeat something someone just said to you. Only this time you apparently don't even realize what he just said to you.

What do you think Darren meant by this;

"Both are great examples of bunkers which are so penal as to ruthlessly dictate your strategy on a hole - you have to avoid them, period, or pay at least an effective one-shot penalty. There's something about that sort of hazard which I find to be just about perfect, (particularly this, (my words)) especially when used in conjunction with an alternate, perceived-to-be "lesser of two evils" hazard(s) on the opposite side (the road and roadside embankment on the Road Hole, or Hill Bunker and the bank behind the green at the Eden Hole) of the target."

Does that sound like Darren is viewing the Road Hole bunker (or Strath Bunker) in a singular context? Not even close! What he's saying is how well what's on the other side of the road balances that road hole bunker (and the other side of the green from the Strath), although perhaps not as penal. What he's talking about, in my opinion, is what really interesting semi-balance or strategic semi-equilibriium is all about. I couldn't agree more Darren!

[jim_lewis]

Darre:

Call me crazy, but I seem to remember hitting a smothered hook on my second shot into a fairway bunker maybe 60-100 yards short left on the road hole.  I think my reaction was something along the lines of "Where did this bunker come from? I don't remember it being here."  I have played the hole only 5 times so I can't be sure.  I remember a lot of things that never happened these days. Can anybody say for sure whether there is a fairway bunker left up near the green on the road hole? I gotta know if I am going crazy.

[Willie_Dow]

It looks to me that Joe Hancock has prevailed - variety is the last word!

[paul cowley]

.... 'working' bunkers ,i.e. strategic ,target or saving bunkers are for the most part all i consider......when in doubt ,i leave it out...['strategic' framing is in though]
......keep it simple [does not mean small or few ,but as needed] [and includes the old course].

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()