Divots: one (excellent) method for locating fairway bunkers

[Ran Morrissett]

A lot of talk is given these days to the appearance of bunkers (collapsing faces vs. clean edges vs. a hard/engineered look, etc.) but far and away their location is more important. Clearly, fairway bunkers have to be tied in with the greenside bunkering/green itself. If the fourth at Woking didn’t feature a left front greenside bunker and a green that ran away to the back right, its famous central fairway bunkers would be, well, less famous.

What about the concept of placing fairway bunkers where people tend to go? MacKenzie in The Spirit of St. Andrews contends that some of The Old Course bunkers were built/formalized in areas that had too many divots to ever get good turf cover. He PRAISED this methodology, given that it guaranteed that the bunkers were relevant to play. It works exceedingly well there, given that the immense width of its fairways always give the player options around these little craters.

Owners of new courses today can’t wait to see the play pattern over their course before building fairway bunkers (and on humdrum property with little topo, balls never collect in any one spot anyway). However, in terms of acting as a guide for letting a course’s fairway bunker pattern evolve, is there any merit to the following statement:

‘The purpose of our fairway bunkers is to dictate playing angles and strategy. Only if the bunkers are positioned where golfers go, do they accomplish these objectives. Thus, every few years, we will study where the most divots are and debate the merits of adding a bunker there.’ 

If you don’t like this idea, is there a better method for considering where to put fairway bunkers? Putting them where there are no divots and where no one goes doesn’t sound very award winning, at least to me.

For instance, though I have yet to see it  , my understanding of the Texas Tech course is that Tom Doak created some interesting rippling land out of a dead flat site. During construction, they gain a general sense of the wind and make an educated guess on where to place fairway bunkers. However, who knows just how fast and firm the ground ends up playing and where the subtle land movement will take balls? In re-visiting the site several years after it opens, would it not make for an interesting study to see where divots tend to gather?

Cheers,

[Matthew Hunt]

There was a golden-age GCA who put in bunkers after construction but my mind decieves me as who.

[Greg Murphy]

On the assumption that players actually are able to accurately place their shots, most divots would collect in a spot to give the ideal angle of approach. Locating hazards within that area would seem to conflict with the overall strategic design of a hole. Wouldn't locating hazards in proximity to where most divots collect create more interest?

[Joe Bausch]

Interesting thread Ran.  People way more experienced than me will hopefully chime in here, but I like your premise.  My only concern would be the perhaps limited/skewed data you might get on par 5's.  It seems to me that there aren't nearly the number of divots on these holes in the driver landing area since fairway metals are frequently played for the 2nd.  And those that do have divots are your bogey golfers or worse, and you wouldn't get as representative data since the single digits or better won't typically take a divot.

Now if was dumb enough as a club owner to have carts w/ GPS systems (!), I might talk to the company about tracking the places that the carts stop on each hole (and for how long they are there).  I think that could add some very useful data to narrow down good areas for bunkers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ran,
The idea probably worked better when there were fewer teeing areas and
less of a distance spread between the 'best' and the 'rest'.
And as you suggest, width is a necessary component. Probably not going to see much of that today.

[Norbert P]

From "Links of Heaven" by Richard Phinney and Scott Whitley . . .

". . . Eddie Hackett had promised to add more bunkers when he found out where the most divots were."  Carne GC's head greenkeeper.

Alas, Eddie's days were coming to an end, but the message was handed down.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matthew

The concept of laying out bunker approx. 2 -3 months after a course has opened is not new, or from the so called Golden Age. It goes back to the time of Old Tom in the late 19th Century.

Inspecting the course and noting the cluster of divots, was an ideal way of locating a hazard in this case a bunker. Not being a course designer
I do not know the modern criteria for positioning bunkers, but the old ways have proved the test of time. 

[Norbert P]

On the assumption that players actually are able to accurately place their shots, most divots would collect in a spot to give the ideal angle of approach. Locating hazards within that area would seem to conflict with the overall strategic design of a hole. Wouldn't locating hazards in proximity to where most divots collect create more interest?

Methinks John Low would disagree with you.

[Chip Gaskins]

this can only really be analyzed on a  course that plays firm and fast, no?

on a course that plays like 80% of the courses in the U.S. where the ball may roll 5-10 yards at most after landing it would be hard to determine "where balls collect".

i think it should be perfectly fine for an architect to come back after a course opens to analyze this (if possible) and install new fairway bunkers to exploit the landing areas and strategies.  i suppose one thing to consider is what happens if you find that landing/collection areas and location of new fairway bunkers actually are/would be in conflict with the best angles to the green sites as they were originally designed.

glad to hear from you Ran!

[Norbert P]

 An example of a location that has plenty of divots, mostly mine, that should NOT get a bunker is the area to the right of the green, near the bottom, is on the 16th at Pacific Dunes.  (Which is reachable on the drive so I do consider it a fairway bunker site.)

  I can only imagine that the layup area on #4 @ Barnbougle is getting plenty of divots. Would a small pot make that drive target more interesting? Would it be too penal?  I think it would be a nice addition for repeated play. A great hole, but if conditions or talent are not conducive for going for the upper tier, the layup becomes disappointing because one is just asked to plink one into a general area.   It's a great strategic and heroic hole, but I think it could use a little bunker in that "safe zone".

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Locating bunkers from the divot pattern doesn't neccessarily mean you've located the best spot from which to approach the green.
Conversely, locating a bunker in close proximity to the 'best spot' from which to make an approach, or along the flight or running path that the ball takes to get there, adds to the defense of the green, but allows for the successful execution of a 'perfect' attack.

[Adam Clayman]

Slag, I read Greg's comments to imply that tempting the golfer, causing them to flirt with a bunker/hazard, was a bunker/hazard's best function.
 
I'm not a fan of precluding any type of shot, too often, save for a reasonable number of aerial approaches. The problem with the above mentioned formulaic placement of bunkers depending on divot patterns, assumes the majority are playing the hole properly. That's a huge assumption. Plus, In Chicagoland the mindset of precluding shots, led to the over planting of trees in spots where guys were able to hit it. Likely starting since the distance advancements of the Haskel.

Ran, While it's a generalization of The Rawls bunkers, they are long concave steep slits, predominately placed at a slight diagonal to the line of play, with the leading edge jutting into, not only the fairway, but the mind of the golfer. Some play their role in tempting the golfer to challenge, with ample reward. Others steer the prudent golfer to safer routes. I'd imagine team Doak was as careful in their placement as they were in their consideration of the wind resulting in steeper smaller slits. Also, The course does not over seed in winter, and in Tom's vernacular, the place really Hums when dormant.

[Kyle Harris]

Could the inverse hold true as well? Such that bunkers that are not used much or with little to no divots in the neighborhood are removed or reduced in size/stature?

I'm wondering if that may be a way to do a renovation...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Perhaps the bunkers are doing their job and persuading the golfer onto another line for potentially more fun? To remove them may not be the right answer. 

[Norbert P]

Slag, I read Greg's comments to imply that tempting the golfer, causing them to flirt with a bunker/hazard, was a bunker/hazard's best function.
 

 Yes, Adam, Greg's post did not deserve such a glib remark and his theory is strong.  I was just bringing back an Old Dead Guy to commemorate Easter.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

Perhaps the bunkers are doing their job and persuading the golfer onto another line for potentially more fun? To remove them may not be the right answer. 

That is reasonable. I was trying to avoid a blanket statement and I think Ran was as well.

Obviously there will be bunkers that are avoided but still serve a purpose but I can think of a few examples of bunkers (outside a dogleg on a 440 yard hole, for example) that serve little purpose other than to frame the shot or give the player some sort of definition.

Some bunkers also eliminate temptation of perhaps going for more than the player is capable.

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The 3rd Hole at Hunter's Green CC in Tampa, FL is a neat Par 5 that is reachable and manageable for all walks of golfers, but can easily tempt a player into trying to overpower the hole.

I contend that the bunker on the outside of the dogleg is unnecessary and actually detracts from the hole. Players seeking to unnecessarily hit a tee shot to the corner that get overzealous and end up in the bunker face a relatively simple bunker escape and short approach into the green in regulation. If the bunker is eliminated, the player is more likely to face the temptation of running a 220 yard shot onto the green or near the green. The green is best approach from just short of the bunker at the inside of the dogleg, as the shot is the same distance as just beyond the bunker and the green slopes toward that point. The further through the fairway one plays, the more the green/approach slopes away from the player into the pond. A wily golfer hitting a 230 yard tee shot just short of the small bunker will be left with a level lie at a 220 yard carry to the middle of the green. The golfer is also presented with shorter second shot options to set up a very short approach if he isn't feeling very confident in carrying the pond.

Here's a picture of the hole with distance reference. I would eliminate the large bunker outside the dogleg to make the hole more tempting and strategic.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

I understand, looking at the photo I would agree, but we must look at the bigger picture. I presume the courses is open to all including Mr & Mrs Average. If that is the case whilst the bunker may not enter into your game,you must consider others who use the course. New players, the normal week-end golfer who is trying to play the game and the young.

If it does not affect your game, why worry, but it is a good learning curve for the less skilled player. I also understand your point; perhaps I try and look at the overall picture.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

I understand, looking at the photo I would agree, but we must look at the bigger picture. I presume the courses is open to all including Mr & Mrs Average. If that is the case whilst the bunker may not enter into your game,you must consider others who use the course. New players, the normal week-end golfer who is trying to play the game and the young.

If it does not affect your game, why worry, but it is a good learning curve for the less skilled player. I also understand your point; perhaps I try and look at the overall picture.

Melvyn,

You're at a disadvantage as I happen to work there ;-) It's not a frequently visited bunker except for the golfer that decides to BLAST it around the corner and just misses a bit. As you can see, the bunker is a 280 yard carry from the regular tee. I'd rather keep that golfer thinking he can reach the green in two and then get into a world of hurt trying to hit a draw out of bermuda rough that starts out toward the pond....  A shot which I think most higher handicappers don't think they have anyway.

Being a shorter hitter, I'm all for bunkers that make me think and don't think to remove those that may affect me but not those who are longer.

I think part of the art of renovation is knowing when to intervene and when to leave enough alone, don't you agree?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

I do understand but am not a course designers, having said that I would presume the mix of players the course attracts or hopes to attract has been calculated.  I don’t believe in this day and age a course can be kept in business by just a hand full of good players. However if you are saying this bunker is never in play by those that use the course then, then indeed why maintain it.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

I do understand but am not a course designers, having said that I would presume the mix of players the course attracts or hopes to attract has been calculated.  I don’t believe in this day and age a course can be kept in business by just a hand full of good players. However if you are saying this bunker is never in play by those that use the course then, then indeed why maintain it.

...it looks pretty dramatic from the tee...

[Mark Bourgeois]

what about putting the bunker about 20 yards short of the collection areas?  that way the bunker doesn't remove an option or force a line yet adds excitement.

I think Colt wrote of a phased approach to construction with bunkers coming last; however, MacK wrote that bunkers did NOT have to wait and for purposes of economy could and should be built concurrently with greens, fairways, etc.

PS isn't  ANGC 18 the poater child, interestingly for both better and for worse, for the merits of this idea?

[TEPaul]

"There was a golden-age GCA who put in bunkers after construction but my mind decieves me as who."

Matthew:

That was William Flynn. He wrote about that as an ideal way to go about it but obviously not all clients wanted to do it that way. Flynn also wrote that his bunkering schemes should vary degpending on what kind of course a client wanted.

[Norbert P]

 Shrink the bunker to eliminate the leftern half and restyle it. Take that sand and place a bunker about one third of the way up the approach leg to combat greed.  It might  create a heroic (ok, maybe not so heroic)  bunker on the second shot for the short hitter, or at least make an obvious statement to consider, and I'm sure the flanking right homeowners wouldn't mind more hazard for the drivers going so near their flightpath. 
Also, what the heck are those two pale geometric objects just short of the green approach? Could they be the ever-so-rare tall grass hollows or mounds?

[J. David Hart]

Good location method, but Mackenzie also said he liked to throw something in the
path a golfer normally takes. It seems that we are getting to regimented in trying to
create something "natural", overthinking, if you will. Remember awhile back a young
budding golf course architect used the word "contrived"?......, its still ringing in my ears!
So many different golfers, of various skill levels. It really depends who we are building it
for. If we create one at the divots shouldn't we create three others, of five,one huge,
or merely frame the hole, indicate direction. or maybe I ought to get off my duff and go to
work........