Is Oakmont the template for future fairway bunker configurations ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some time ago I posted a thread about making bunkers function as they were intended to by either making them deeper, where soil & drainage permited, and/or by creating above ground berms at their faces.

That would aptly describe the bunkers at Oakmont.
Deep, with high bermed faces.

Faces that present an abrupt and distinctive impediment to advancing the ball.

It doesn't matter how skilled one is with a utility club or their irons, advancing the ball a meaningful distance from the mid-point of the bunker forward is difficult, if not impossible.

Is this the way fairway bunkers should function ?

They are definitely a half a stroke to a full stroke penalty, and may be more than a full stroke penalty for the foolish or brazen.

I liked them.
They sent a clear message to the golfers eye and brain.
Avoid me at all costs.

What I also liked about them was their use on short holes, and, from the members back tees, Oakmont has 6 short holes, # 2, # 5, # 7, # 11, # 14 and # 17.
Even from the Open tees, # 2, # 5, # 11, # 14 and # 17 are short, and some might throw # 3 in as well.

The fairway bunkers in conjunction with the parallel fairway ditches/hazards present an interesting look, one that's unique and intimidating.

It's my contention, that the fairway bunker configuration at Oakmont will be adopted by other clubs.  That bunkers will be made deeper, where possible, and that fronting berms will be added or heightened for effect.

Interestingly enough, I found an uncanny resemblance between the fairway bunkers at Oakmont and some of the really old fairway bunkers at GCGC.

Could it be, that Oakmont's attempts to return to their penal architectural roots will inspire other golf clubs to construct their bunkers to function as intended, ie, more penal ?

[Pete Lavallee]

Could it be, that Oakmont's attempts to return to their penal architectural roots will inspire other golf clubs to construct their bunkers to function as intended, ie, more penal ?

Actually, I think it's the USGA, who upon inspection of the course for a possible event, recommend that the bunkers be deepened. I believe the choice of MacDonald and Sons all but guarantees the awarding of said event. Soon every Classic Course in the US will have the same looking bunkers. Pat, didn't you notice an uncanny resemblence of the new bunkers at Oakmont to the new "White Faces of Merion"?

[Phil Benedict]

Oakmont's fairway bunkers serve their function indeed but I'm not sure how much influence they are likely to have on other courses.  One of the things that makes them so effective is that they collectively cover a good bit of ground but are individually pretty small, which makes them hard to recover from because you are always close to the lip.  The maintenance budget must be astronomical with so many bunkers to care for.  I suppose other places could built small, deep bunkers, just not so many of them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I sure hope not.

I think the idea of moving bunkers further down the line of play from the tee is generally a lousy one, and the idea of moving historical bunkers in closer to the fairway, which permanently alters the fairway widths, is not a good one either.

I think it worked at Oakmont simply because it seems consistent with the Fownes philosophy of making the place as difficult as reason allows.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Actually, I think it's the USGA, who upon inspection of the course for a possible event, recommend that the bunkers be deepened.

I'll look into that and report back to you.[/color]

I believe the choice of MacDonald and Sons all but guarantees the awarding of said event.

Selecting M&S is NOT a factor in the process.
The decision is made long before they set foot onto the property.[/color]

Soon every Classic Course in the US will have the same looking bunkers.

How would you return their function without adding depth and/or berming the front ?[/color]

Pat, didn't you notice an uncanny resemblence of the new bunkers at Oakmont to the new "White Faces of Merion"?

I don't think they're alike in appearance, form or function.

Contractors implement the marching orders from the architect,  they don't design the bunkers.

Granted that the architectural firm was the same, but the bunkers are differerent.[/color]

[Ryan Farrow]

Pat, you have a good point about the bunkers function and I like how the bunkers play. You must not overlook the difficulty in maintaining bunkers like this.

Also do you not get the same result with furrowing the bunkers? No need of massive renovation and no need for ridiculous maintenance practices.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you have a good point about the bunkers function and I like how the bunkers play.

You must not overlook the difficulty in maintaining bunkers like this.

It's only the grass berm, above and below grade that requires extra care, the bottom of the bunker is no different from any other bunker.[/color]

Also do you not get the same result with furrowing the bunkers?

Not quite, but, it certainly would be penal.
And, it does require delicate maintainance, ergo, extra cost.
[/color]

No need of massive renovation and no need for ridiculous maintenance practices.

Properly furrowing the bunker floors IS a labor intensive and requires special maintainance practices, ergo $.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I sure hope not.

I think the idea of moving bunkers further down the line of play from the tee is generally a lousy one,

Mike,

How else do you retain the original architectural intent ?

My impression of the bunkers at Oakmont is that they're very functional for every level of golfer.

Oakmont rarely has A bunker in the DZ, there are usual a number of them, and/or a parallel ditch on the non-bunkered side.[/color]

and the idea of moving historical bunkers in closer to the fairway, which permanently alters the fairway widths, is not a good one either.

That's a seperate architectural issue.

The issue for this thread is the form or configuration of the bunker, not its location.[/color]

I think it worked at Oakmont simply because it seems consistent with the Fownes philosophy of making the place as difficult as reason allows.  

There's definitely a special culture and/or view of golf at Oakmont.

The shorter holes seem to be more heavily bunkered, which I find architecturally acceptable.[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
I agree with what Mike said. With the Oakmont philosophy of emphasizing difficulty, this type of bunker fits. Certainly not every architect/course has that same philosophy of having penalizing bunkers.

I would imagine a few courses might follow, but as I think you've alluded to it depends on the intent of the architect. More realistically, it depends on the feeling of the current memhership and their goals for the course.

[Phil McDade]

Pat:

Some of the visual flyovers done for the recent Open at Oakmont, comparing it to 1994, as well as some photographs I've seen, suggest Oakmont's bunkers are much deeper, with much more pronounced lips, than a decade or so ago. Were Oakmont's bunkers under Fownes' original design as deep as they are today, with lips as pronounced? I have a sense they were not, and that Fownes viewed their number and placement -- as opposed to depth and the nature of their physical features -- as one of the chief defenses of the course. In particular, bunkers at 17 and 18 appear to be much deeper than their original design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some of the visual flyovers done for the recent Open at Oakmont, comparing it to 1994, as well as some photographs I've seen, suggest Oakmont's bunkers are much deeper, with much more pronounced lips, than a decade or so ago.

I believe that you're correct.[/color]

Were Oakmont's bunkers under Fownes' original design as deep as they are today, with lips as pronounced?

I don't believe they were[/color]

I have a sense they were not, and that Fownes viewed their number and placement -- as opposed to depth and the nature of their physical features -- as one of the chief defenses of the course.

I don't think you can compare their form/configuration under Fownes's regime and their current form/configuration absent the context of today's equipment versus the equipment in use circa Fownes.

It's a matter of function.

How did they function under Fownes vs how do they function today ?

If you read what Fownes intended, their penal intent, then the loss of a full shot is what he desired.

There were NO Sand Wedges when Fownes designed/constructed Oakmont.  There were no utility or hybrid clubs when Fownes designed/constructed Oakmont, hence, the bunkers Fownes designed/constructed functioned to impede the forward advancement of the ball based on the players ability to do so with the equipment at hand.

Today, those bunkers serve Fownes's intent.
They are in keeping with his philosophy.[/color]

In particular, bunkers at 17 and 18 appear to be much deeper than their original design.

Let's say that they are.

It's not how deep they are, it's how they function in terms of the game's and equipment they were meant to interface with.

Again, Fownes's bunkers were there to serve a purpose, a penal purpose.

Today's form/configuration is true to Fownes's intent.[/color]

P.S.  A number of Fownes's bunkers that had been previously removed were restored over the last 10 years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Troeger,

Your response triggers the following question.

Shouldn't bunker design keep up with equipment developments ?

In other words, shouldn't a bunker's FUNCTION be preserved by altering the bunker ?

If a bunker in 1928 was meant to perform a specific function and its function has been muted if not thwarted by modern equipment, doesn't that bunker need to be reconfigured so that it may perform its function, as intended ?

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
In an ideal world I would agree with that yes. Many courses I think have tried to do exactly what you say, probably with varying success in terms of how to actually do that. Keeping the function and the general appearance of the original bunker I'm sure can be challenging.

I would agree with you that how a bunker plays should be more important than the "look" that so many are enamored with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shouldn't function determine the form ?