[TEPaul]

I think there's a real opportunity in future design to put some penal bunkering (either penal architecturally or due to their grassing) back close to strategic fairway lines or better yet in well inside fairway lines. I think the key, matter of fact the virtual necessity this time around is simply to make them small enough and with enough fairway area around them to make them eminentally missable---and in that fact alone they'd be more acceptable to the "fairness fixated" crowd! It would probably be considered a return of the strategic value of the small European pot bunker but in this case they may not need to be pots. The key though would be---small enough with enough safe fairway area around them!! The only possible potential problem I could ever see with this might be that architects would begin to worry about the scale of them---but so what?

What do you think?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree.  I'm a center line hazards guy.  I love them.  I also like width (which is needed to have strategic as well as penal center line hazards) and that is where the dilemma comes in.  Width is sometimes very restricted especially when you add in the required length these days.  You are looking at lots of acreage.
Mark

[paul cowley]

....I'ts interesting that you should mention that as I am in the process of putting in three of the style you describe at our little fort course.......not quite sure what to name them yet....something short, as per their stature, like maybe Paul [which actually means short] or maybe Edwin or Tom even.

...yeah, like three little muses  

[Ted Kramer]

I like the idea of penal bunkers that are in play.
Wait, hold on a second, lets just think about that. . . .

-Aren't bunkers hazards?
-Shouldn't hazards be penal?
-If a hazard is not in play, how exactly is it penal?

So if that basic logic stands up, isn't it only fair to say that using penal bunkers that are truly in play is more than acceptable, it is actually just about the only way to use bunkers that makes much architectural sense at all.

-Ted

[Kyle Harris]

Ted,

I believe it's penal in an architectural school sense. Meaning the hazard directly crosses the line of play. Giving the golfer no option but to carry the hazard in order to finish the hole.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

I believe it's penal in an architectural school sense. Meaning the hazard directly crosses the line of play. Giving the golfer no option but to carry the hazard in order to finish the hole.

That is not what was described in the original post.
What was described was,  

". . . the virtual necessity this time around is simply to make them small enough and with enough fairway area around them to make them eminentally missable---and in that fact alone they'd be more acceptable to the "fairness fixated" crowd! It would probably be considered a return of the strategic value of the small European pot bunker but in this case they may not need to be pots."

That idea doesn't even come close to resembling:

". . . penal in an architectural school sense. Meaning the hazard directly crosses the line of play. Giving the golfer no option but to carry the hazard in order to finish the hole."

-Ted

[Kyle Harris]

Hmm, then that would be more in line with Strategic thinking.

Now I'm on board with your logic.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom,
You know that I will go along with you on this one.
Golf is becoming way too unpenal... if there is such a word..and it is time to start restoring the game the way teh architects of the past meant it to be played..as in my thread last week reagrding Flynn's comments..which I inadvertantly credited to Travis....I think that was a freudian slip secondary to my desire to play in the Travis some day.

[Mark_Fine]

Just one correction guys; a penal hazard doesn't have to be in the line of play.  Lateral water hazards are just one example.  They are pretty penal but can also be very strategic.  

[JESII]

Tom Paul

How would a small "pot bunker size" bunker in the middle of your 11th fairway be accepted by the "fairness fixated" members of your club?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Mark
Agreed, I do not agree with penal for penal's sake, just to get the integrity back into the game.
Fairness is not essential..but unfairness is not architecturally sound...it is a very fine line.
I like Tom do not deem central hazards as necessarily unfair, they can be wonderfully strategic, and again bring some integrity back to the game.

I must admit though, I think a more penal rough 25/30 yards offline is also required...especailly on the PGA tour

I think that is why I like Pine Valley so much..the fairways are generous,but if you hit a bad shot way offline..it's gonna get ya just the way the old guys intended golf to be played.

I have no problem at all with these guys hitting the ball 340 off the tee..that's talent..but if they cannot keep it on the fairway, where is the talent and skill that was so important to the early architects....some of those tee shots thatwere hit at Doral by messrs Tiger and Phil..heck they would still be looking for the balls at PV

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm curious about the scale of these small bunkers. Certainly not every site would be capable of pulling-it-off, could they?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think it depends on three (3) things.

1.   Who the developer or prime mover is.
2.   Who the end user will be.
3    Who the architect is.
4    Who is on first base..

[Bradley Anderson]

The center region of the hole corridor definitely needs more interest. And I agree that these bunkers do not need to be large to be effective.

I guess the only problem with the concept is saftey. Especially in a housing development project where the corridors are lined by houses down both sides. And on the older courses where the land was under 140 acres there just isn't the room to design wide corridors. If you put a hazard in the middle of the corridor, everyone will expect an alternative route.

But absolutely. If I had my own golf course the middle of the corridor would be fair game for hazards. I just think it would make the game so much more interesting.

[Mark Brown]

TE,

I love it, and will do it, at least on a couple holes of my first co-design.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()