[Patrick_Mucci]

Should there be a relationship between greenside bunker depth and the degree of contouring on the putting surface ?

[Scott Witter]

I don't think there needs to be any correlation at least not intentionally speaking, such as you say Pat for I can think of countless great green complexes that don't have any bunkers.  But since you posed this question is "degree" the same as difficulty?

I have played, seen and designed many such circumstances where the bunker depth was shallow and the degree of contour was also quiet and moderate, yet the difficulty/playability of the hole was balanced throughout and the green complex suited the hole at hand.  For me, I don't use such a parameter or criteria in design, at least not intentionally, but I suspect I do to some degree inherently take into consideration depth as a small component of design, but honestly, there is simply too much else to keep in mind and study at each green complex that I suppose it more or less just happens the way it happens at an intuitive level rather than using some predisposed bias to actually think about it in a literal way that you ask.

[Chris Holcombe]

I don't think so. But what about green size and relationship to bunker depth? It is nice to have a decent size green to hit to out of a deep pit.

[Scott Witter]

Chris,

Do you think Pinehurst would be Pinehurst if you had "nice" decent sized greens as opposed to the character building/challenging, to put it mildly, surfaces they have?

Much also depends not only on bunker depth for that is only one aspect of a bunker, but also the style of bunker design and how it is built, the overall slope it is on, have you seen some of the bunkers at Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, etc, I would say depth is clearly not the only key issue.  For that matter a more natural bunker as referenced may have a constantly changing depth as it relates to it surrounds and therefore, "depth" is somewhat irrelevant.

Who the hell said golf has to be "nice" anyway. Bunkers fit the circumstance for which they are best suited as a integral and essential component to the green complex if desired by the designer and it they are felt to be necessary for the hole regarding playability, you know the lingo, etc....  Nice? I don't think the more creative architects of the world would feel compelled to include 'nice' in their design criteria.

[Dave_Miller]

Should there be a relationship between greenside bunker depth and the degree of contouring on the putting surface ?

Pat:
Personally I don't think so.  Do you? If you do what would your reasons be.
Best
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

I was trying to recall severely contourned greens with deep greenside bunkers, and outside of the 1st and 3rd holes at NGLA couldn't think of any, with the possible exceoption of some at Forsgate, although, I don't know that I'd categorize the contouring as severe.  The 16th at Essex County East might be an example, although I don't know that I'd categorize the bunker as deep.

The double demand seems too onerous.

The deep bunker presents its own problems, which are compounded when severe contouring is introduced, hence, from recollection, it would seem that architects avoid that configuration at all costs.

I've seen a number of deep bunkers with sloped or mildly contoured greens but, severely contoured greens are another matter.

The only place where it would seem to make sense is on a short hole.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

If they were related, wouldn't that mean they were 'fair?'  And why should that have anything to do with it?  After all, if you see the contours and allow for them it could hardly be unfair, could it?

The average player isn't going to be able to dictate where his escape is going to land, so what difference would it make?  

The better player would be forced to display more skill.  

Wouldn't it also mean, generally, that the green complex in question was 'manufactured'?   After all, on a great piece of property, bunkers carved into knolls and ridges etc are going to have a certain depth, and greens are going to have natural-type contours anyway.  

Maybe it's just a matter of balance.  If it was repeated time after time, it would be onerous.  A handful of times per round, it's fun to see if you can judge contours properly, whether from the sand or elsewhere around the green, to get them to coax your ball closer to the hole.

By the way, doesn't Winged Foot West have severe greens and deep bunkers?  Or Oakmont?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, there are all kinds of ways to perceive the idea of "deep".  There are deep sand pits with high sand flashed slopes, and there are flat sand bottoms with high grass slopes.  Each can be constructed integral to the green surface contouring.  The big pushed-up greens of Raynor and CB or Langford more often have the grass sloped incline up to the putting surface and are relatively flatish in the bunker bottoms.  Yet, the incline some of those shots must negotiate to get up to the putting surface is significant, and to fall short is a ball sometimes nested in thick surrounds grass.  Then a second shot onto the putting surface often requires a different sort of finesse with a wedge than the sand explosion.

So, which do you prefer?  Do you like a sand flashed steep incline to the green, or grass? Then, do you like a smallish green next to a steep incline from the bunker that is less contoured or a larger green with wild contouring perhaps segmenting the green into sections or plateaus onto which to play your bunker shot?  All those combinations matter, I think.  

An excellent example of a not so contoured green, but smallish putting surface onto which to land from an extreemly deep flatish bunker, up a very steep grass inclined is 11 at CC of Charleston, which someone mentioned on the DG a few days ago.  There, you can't have a wild contour when the shot coming from deep below must have some quiet sq footage to settle, or you will just keep going from one side deep bunker to the next by rolling off and through down the other side.

Things have to go together to make good design sense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If they were related, wouldn't that mean they were 'fair?'

NO[/color]

And why should that have anything to do with it?  After all, if you see the contours and allow for them it could hardly be unfair, could it?

How can you see the contours, let alone the green, from a deep bunker ?[/color]

The average player isn't going to be able to dictate where his escape is going to land, so what difference would it make?  

The better player would be forced to display more skill.  

Wouldn't it also mean, generally, that the green complex in question was 'manufactured'?  

Not necessarily, but, let's assume it was.   So what ?

Are the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA bad because they're manufactured ?

How about all of CMB's, SR's and CB's green complexes ?
Do they have no merit because they were manufactured ?[/color]

After all, on a great piece of property, bunkers carved into knolls and ridges etc are going to have a certain depth, and greens are going to have natural-type contours anyway.  
WHY ?
One only has to look at NGLA, Yale or GCGC to see deep bunkers and greens with natural and unnatural contours, yet the golf courses are superior.[/color]

Maybe it's just a matter of balance.  If it was repeated time after time, it would be onerous.  A handful of times per round, it's fun to see if you can judge contours properly, whether from the sand or elsewhere around the green, to get them to coax your ball closer to the hole.

By the way, doesn't Winged Foot West have severe greens and deep bunkers?  Or Oakmont?

You must be kidding.
When's the last time you played the 10th hole at WFW ?
At pace, WFW greens are severe, and it has an abundance of deep bunkers unless you don't consider the ones on # 13 and # 14 deep.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

I think an interesting contrast is provided by the 1st, 4th, 6th and 8th holes at NGLA.

# 1 requires a short pitch or chip to a severely contoured green with deep bunkers.  # 4 requires a long carry to a minimally contoured, but sloped green elevated above deep bunkers.  # 6 requires a short to medium approach to a severely contoured green surrounded by deep to medium to shallow bunkers.  # 8 requires a longer approach from a hazardous LZ to a highly elvevated but relatively flat green with deep and shallow bunkers.

Where a hole is "short" penalizing inaccurate approaches or recoveries seems like good architecture.  Severe to moderate contours combined with deep bunkers seems to fulfill that need.

Pete Dye once told me that he wanted the PGA Tour pros to have to hit to specific quadrants on the 14th green at Crooked Stick.  Contouring seperates quadrants.  He also stated that he wanted to force them to have to hit long irons into that green, something the PGA Tour Pro rarely does on a par 4.

When he said that, I reflected on the 1st green at NGLA and the disparity in the playing ability of the typical golfer at NGLA and the PGA Tour pro, and the desire on his part to force a superior player to be faced with a similar configuration, risk-reward and penalty.

Hence, on a "SHORT" hole, I think the configuration of severe contouring combined with deep bunkering is a desirable feature.

On longer holes, to preserve shot values and realistic expectations, severe contours combined with deep bunkers would seem excessive.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

"How can you see the contours, let alone the green, from a deep bunker?"

Umm, you take note of them before you enter?

I think we got lost in translation vis a vis Winged Foot and Oakmont.  I wasn't querying whether they were deep, I was merely posing a rhetorical question, since I have never seen them, and asking for confirmation.  

And there must be manufactured, and 'manufactured'.  Why do so many architects get slammed for creating obviously artificial features, yet others past muster?  

I have but no doubt, manufactured or not, that NGLA is a superior golf course, not least because yourself, TE PAul, Tom Doak, and, in "Golf From The Inside', where he says it would be at the top of his list to play, Mike Clayton, say it is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why do so many architects get slammed for creating obviously artificial features, yet others past muster?  

Good question.

I think it depends upon whether or not this site has bestowed
"most favored Nation" status on them.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If by 'deep bunkers' you mean there're instances the golfer may have to get the ball "up" quite quickly it looks like there may be plenty of this combination of deep bunkers and contoured greens at TOC.  

But I'm wondering if what you're really asking is if any of us feel there should be some formulaic relationship between green-side bunker depth and green surface contour. If that is in fact what you'd like to ask, I would say no there shouldn't be any formulaic relationship between the two. In my mind any kind of formulaics or standardizations in golf course architecture is generally not a good philosophy or principle.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()