Do we discuss bunker appearance too much?

[Jason Topp]

There is a lot of discussion on this site about appearance of bunkers.  While I have my preferences on that front, when playing the only thing I care about is how a bunker plays.  With a decent greenside lie, there really isn't all that much difference between bunker types in most instances.

To me - contour on the greens, green surrounds and fairways is far more important in determining the quality of a course.  It's just harder to capture contours in photographs.

Do we emphasize bunker look too much in these discussions?

[PThomas]

NO!

God, I hate boring, vanilla-shaped bunkers so much...they might ruin the appearance of a course than anything else

or bunkers that all look the same...there's a picture of Cog Hill I'm thinking about where the 5 bunkers around a green look exactly the same...ugh!!!!!!!

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

Isn't more than just bunkers? Isn't there a lot of talk about appearance in general. When it comes right down to it, when I am playing golf I am thinking about the shots and not the appearance. Doesn't appearance add more to prestige than to golf? I can enjoy a game of chess on a ratty old board with cracked and broken plastic pieces even more than I can on a artistic board and artistic pieces where I have trouble telling the bishop from the queen, or the queen from the king for that matter (unisex chess?).

[Peter_Collins]

Paul T:

What do you think of the bunkering at Southern Hills?  The oversized bunkers seem to fit well with the overall design, but would be boring by GCA standards.

[Jordan Wall]

NO!!!

If Augusta National had bunkers that looked like the bunkers at St. Andrews, how would the course change??  Would it be as appealing??  Honestly...

What if Carnoustie had bunkers that looked like the bunkers at Seminole??  That would look funny, wouldnt it??

And, what if the bunkers at say, Camargo were replaced with the bunkers at Sand Hills??  It would look a bit funny, wouldn't it..

The short answer is no, and these are just a few reasons why.

IMO, it is very hard for me enjoy a course when it is not visibly appealing, and bunkers are a very big part of the visual.

[PThomas]

Paul T:

What do you think of the bunkering at Southern Hills?  The oversized bunkers seem to fit well with the overall design, but would be boring by GCA standards.

Peter - I haven't been there but will try and look at some pictures tonite...but if they are what I'm imagining they look like, then I guess they would take away from the course for me

[ed_getka]

The first and foremost objective of a bunker is to be a hazard. As in, PLEASE don't go in THERE!!! Once that objective is achieved, the next is to be strategically located so as to give me pause as to whether I want to challenge the bunker to gain an advantage. This decision is made MUCH more difficult if the first principle is met above. Lastly, I much prefer the shaggy edged bunkering that many here prefer, but it is not my primary means of evaluating bunkering.

Jason,
   I think sometimes we discuss appearance here because the other parts are taken for granted as already being there on a lot of courses that are discussed here. Just a thought.

[Brent Hutto]

I am skeptical of most courses with more than 75 bunkers.  That is more than 6 per hole!

More than 4 per hole, actually.

Hope you count "bits" better than you count bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes.

As an architect I understand it is important to work on the appearance of the bunkers.  But it should not be a major topic of discussion as it relates to the quality of the course, as it often is here.

Oddly, despite all the discussion of bunker looks here, I don't think I have ever seen anyone post any comment which would have helped the shapers improve their work.  All the group ever says is "Wow that looks beautiful," or "I don't like those."

[Mark_F]

Tom,

How many of your shapers have studied art, or are interested in art, and therefore areas such as form, shape, proportion and composition?

[Tyler Kearns]

Probably. The placement and relationship of bunkers to other golf features is paramount, however, all things being equal, I'll take the en-vogue ragged bunker style over the sterile Augusta-esque bunkers any day. Golf is part visual experience, and the forms and features should be appealing to the eye.

TK

[Tyler Kearns]

Tom,

How many of your shapers have studied art, or are interested in art, and therefore areas such as form, shape, proportion and composition?

Mark,

Good question. I am not sure the background of many of his associates or shapers (some of them are one in the same I believe), but those that graduated with degrees from Architecture schools will have taken some classes in art history.

TK

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

My associates include guys who majored in education, civil engineering, architecture, turf management, environmental design, and microbiology.  I'd say most of them are into music more than art for art's sake, but that is not to discount their artistic abilities, I think most of them are really good at building things that are appealing to the eye.

Likewise, I have a very good sense of proportion and composition, even though I have no freehand artistic talent whatsoever.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There is a lot of discussion on this site about appearance of bunkers.  While I have my preferences on that front, when playing the only thing I care about is how a bunker plays.


I'd agree.[/color]

With a decent greenside lie, there really isn't all that much difference between bunker types in most instances.

I'd disagree[/color]

To me - contour on the greens, green surrounds and fairways is far more important in determining the quality of a course.


But, doesn't bunkering dictate strategy and play ?
And, aren't you there to PLAY the golf course ?[/color]

It's just harder to capture contours in photographs.
I don't know the relevance of photographs when it comes to playing a golf course[/color]

Do we emphasize bunker look too much in these discussions?


I used to think so, but the participants on GCA.com seem to have learned a lot since my arrival [/color]

[Forrest Richardson]

The three most important elements in terms of bunkers are:

1. Placement (overwhelming...78% considered it #1)
2. Shape & Edging
3. Aesthetics

This...according to the results of a survey which appears in Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards.

I agree (even though I did not get a vote.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason Topp,

Forrest Richardson and Mark Fine have written an excellent book on bunkers named: "Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards"

I recommend it to everyone.

[Forrest Richardson]

Thank you, Pat. But I always recommend people buy two copies...one for their library and one for their golf bag.

[Gary Daughters]

I don't think I/we study photos of Mackenzie's bunkers at Cypress and Pasatiempo strictly for their placement.  Fact is they are visual works of art.  No sense in discounting that aspect of the golf experience.

Do Mackenzie's intricate shapes promote strategy alone (I don't think so), or was he also showing off?

Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Forrest Richardson]

I do not support discounting aesthetics — but the fact is that aesthetics is much more a temporary, not to mention a "less-effort", task.

Nearly any bunkering can be tweaked to look better — rougher edges; ragged shapes made from sterile shapes; slightly deeper; turned-in banks; etc. These are things that a crew can knock out in no time compared to having to construct an entirely new hazard, or to fill-in a hazard.

It is akin to roughs and trees — For the most part, roughs and trees are rather temporary compared to routing, grades and feature placement/position.

This is why, I believe, the majority feel that aesthetics are less essential...less, not "not".

[Jason Topp]

Thanks everyone for the comments.  I've been tied up with work/family obligations and will respond to some of them when I have the chance.

[Dan Kelly]

Oddly, despite all the discussion of bunker looks here, I don't think I have ever seen anyone post any comment which would have helped the shapers improve their work.  All the group ever says is "Wow that looks beautiful," or "I don't like those."

Tom --

What sorts of comments do you make to shapers to help them improve their work?

Dan

P.S. Funny thing about this Web site: There are so many people (sometimes including me!) making so many sharp-edged comments here that even *I* wonder, reading my own question, if it has some sarcastic content -- as in: "OK, smarty-pants, so we're all so bloody unhelpful with our comments -- what do YOU say that's so all-fired insightful, Einstein?"!

Trust me on this (and I've closely examined my soul before saying this): There is ABSOLUTELY NO SARCASTIC, SMART-ALECKY CONTENT in my question. I'm just curious, that's all, about how "we" GCAers might improve "our" critical skills regarding bunkers (and, possibly, other matters).

[Gary Daughters]

Forrest,

If turning a boring, ass ugly bunker into something that looks daring or compelling (and can be maintained) is that easy, then I say bring on the shovels!

You're a pro, I'm not.  I just wonder if you're de-emphasizing
aesthetics too much.  Just wondering.  Seems to me this is not a zero-sum thing we're talking here.  Why not both?

[Forrest Richardson]

We received 75 returned surveys from a pool of 100. Our final group included officials from golf organizations across the world (30%), golf architecture enthusiasts and writers (25%), greenkeepers (20%), golf professionals (18%), and golf course architects (7%).

[Forrest Richardson]

We asked them to rate the three aspects of bunkers in terms of importance.

[Gary Daughters]

Forrest,

If my question to you wasn't naive or misguided I'd appreciate it if you could take a moment or two to answer it.  It won't hurt my feelings if you tell me I'm an idiot, which I doubt you'd do to begin with.  I think it's a legitimate question, and I really don't know the answer.

Thanks,

Gary