Why Do Archies Place Bunkers Next To Water?

[Sean_A]

I just had a look at the the photos of B. Silva's course in MA.  Yet again there were holes with bunkering bordering water.  I don't understand why this is such a popular thing to do these days.  I am assuming there are technical (you know, archie blind em' with science talk) or aesthetic reasons.  I don't like the look at all.  It breaks with my keep it simple theory.  I sort of feel this style is related to the "why put in one bunker when three looks so nice?" design theory.  What are the reasons for doing it? 

Ciao

[ForkaB]

I'll make a wild assed guess, Sean.

The bunkers stop wayward shots from being consigned to a watery grave.  Golfers don't like to lose their pelotas and owners don't like golfers slowing down play by fishing for them in their carefully designed water features.

[ForkaB]

Sean

My point was that the addition of bunkers takes the water out of play--not completely, but significantly.

[ForkaB]

Think "gravity" Sean.

[Paul Richards]

Another reason they do it is because it looks 'pretty'.

Aesthetics.

[Dan_Callahan]

I would think that people who like "natural" looking courses would prefer this feature. After all, isn't that where you would typically find sand, especially in the Northeast? That is, at the beach, next to the water?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Purely from a gca standpoint, I don't mind sand against water on longer holes as a two step penalty, but I generally agree with you.

If the course is in New England or some other environmentally sensitive region, they may be required as a buffer between golf course and water to keep fertilzer spreaders further away and then filter any chemical inputs before they reach the water.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Sean, I assume you are referring to #18 at Red Tail:


This is a long, downhill par 5 that is reachable for long hitters.  For them, this bunker is not in play.

The bunker is about 100 yards from the green, so it is right in the layup area.  So it is definitely in play for the higher handicappers.  It is also not visible from the fairway.

In a way, I think it's a gift to the higher-handicapper who pushes his layup too far right.  It should be in the water, but it isn't.  Of course, that leaves a 100-yard shot from the sand...


Edit:  this might be why I think this.  This is from Ron Whitten's review of Red Tail (http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/redtail.html):

Red Tail's 18th is reachable par-5, 572 yards from the back tees (but downhill most of the way), 499 yards or less for the rest of us. Crank out a tee shot to catch the downslope and you might have an iron into the green. But it must carry the natural kettle hole pond that protects the putting surface. When I first saw the 18th (from the nearby 10th tee), I silently scoffed at the buffer bunker Silva had installed at the base of a hill short of the pond, but when I played the hole, my dribbled lay-up would have reached the pond had that bunker not stopped it.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I would think that people who like "natural" looking courses would prefer this feature. After all, isn't that where you would typically find sand, especially in the Northeast? That is, at the beach, next to the water?

Here is #17 at Red Tail, with its natural sand:


This is a really fun hole to play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Looking at the pic of the 18th at Red Tail, my guess is that the pond fronting bunker is a save bunker for a top shot.  He left the water in play for a good player, but figured there is no reason to slow down play and frustrate someone who has already missed the green badly.  

It also appears that the front edge of the lake isn't totally visible, so Brian may have thought it "fairer" to stop someone if they were trying to lay up, but couldn't tell where the front of the pond is. I'm pretty sure the bunker is blind, too.

As far as the two step penalty, many golfers would argue that a two stroke penalty for missing a long iron shot by inches to a few feet is too severe.  If I find that I have "too many" greenside ponds in a design, whether natural or if they are man made for drainage, irrigation storage, fill generation, etc., I might take the two longest approach shots and bunker the edge for variety, and to give a little miss room on the longer shot.  

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I don't like the idea of a bunker saving a shot destined for water.  Why have water in play if you don't want it in play?  On the other hand I can see where the choice of going over the water from a bunker or laying out would be interesting.  I am not sure the interest outweighs the expense and lfunky aesthetics, but that is just my opinion.  

Sean, I agree with you.  And I think that the bunker wouldn't be there if this were a private club with a golf-savvy membership.

Neverthless, it's a fun hole to play.  Every time I try to hit the green in 2, I end up in the water, and make a bogey.  And I have birded it several times by laying up.  So I guess I need to work on my long irons and fairway woods...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

They can't all be heroic shots......If the site has several green with water (or tee shots) I think the golfer needs a respite some time........

The weaker player (I once lost a job using that phrase, BTW, apparently its not politically correct) is left with a bad shot on that case at Red Tail, but like getting older, its still better than the alternative.  I have never used one quite like that.  I am thinking a lateral bunker between green and water is more common.

[BCrosby]

The weaker player (I once lost a job using that phrase, BTW, apparently its not politically correct)....

I didn't lose a job using that phrase, but I ticked off a group I was talking with not long ago. Caught me by surprise. But I think I understand where they were coming from. They viewed it as a back-handed insult.

The Darwinian "handicap player" seems to go down more easily.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

"If the site has several greens/tees close to water chances are I won't be very interested in playing the course."

And it is the gca job to make you want to play the course. Hence, save bunkers, containment, and other features the proverbial you would question in theory, but which have some very good value from time to time in making a course gentle enough for most golfers.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, architects place bunkering next to water or anything else because basically bunkering has become one of maybe two of the basic primary artistic expressions to them in all of golf course architecture.

I believe at one point Arnold Palmer tried to claim he was the first one to think up the idea of the "beach bunker". Strange that Arnie would say that since he did play Pine Valley (the 14th hole) long, long before he became a golf course architect.  

Why did the 14th hole at PVGC have such an early "beach bunker" (in front of the 14th green)?

Well, think about it---the 14th green is completely man-made (there wasn't even terra firma originally were it now is). And what is PVGC naturally but basically straight sand. So if they are going to build a green like that it only stands to reason that the front merging into the pond or lake would be sand too. Maybe the fronting bunker on PV's #14 should just be referred to as a "beach" and not a "beach bunker".

But think about that too. If it was just called a "beach" and not a (beach) bunker then golfers would be allowed to ground their club on it, wouldn't they, and obviously that just wouldn't be fittin', would it?

If you think about it enough, you will come to realize just how much the actual evolutionary Rules of Golf have done to effect some of the things about golf and golf architecture we just take for granted these days.