[Rich Goodale]

Ran

I very much agree in principle with this concept, particular if there is a wide bail-out area 20 yards or so before the bunkering, and there are narrowish channels parallel with the bunkers which can give one a primo angle to the green, if one is so bold (and capable) of getting there.

Rich

[John Burzynski]

It would seem to me that if the majority of the divots are 'well placed' meaning that they are locations of accurate drives and symptomatic of the golfer playing the path to the hole the way the hole was designed, then why add an additional bunker, except to make the hole even tougher to navigate?     

Cutting off what may be the architect's only designed or desired path to the green might make the hole too tough for most golfers, or maybe even change the entire approach to a hole from the tee, depending on the hole's design.  Then you will just end up with a whole new set of divots somewhere else in the fairway (and locating another bunker there?), as golfers decide to play to a different area from the tee.

I could see this working if the desire was to lengthen a hole that plays short; by locating a bunker at an area where most drives land, you will maybe cause the golfer to hit short of the bunker and play a longer more dangerous 2nd shot or two shorter second and third shots by laying up.     

I guess it depends how tough you want to make the hole.

[Garland Bayley]

How about a modern day approximation to this method? Send golfers to the tee with a bucket of range balls and ask them to try to hit the drives they would like to hit while playing the hole. I know that it might be misleading in some instances, because players will often learn how to better play a hole after playing it a few times, but it should give a reasonable first approximation on many holes. Perhaps it is the holes that are the least deceptive from the beginning that need this treatment more than others, so it would work out quite well.

[Tom_Doak]

It's a great idea, if a developer is willing to wait 3-4 years of play-testing before putting in his bunkers and getting some p.r. for the finished course.  Maybe Ran should try it for Cabot Links, or maybe he is floating a trial balloon here.

But, another caveat is that you'd better not have to put drainage under those bunkers if you're going to wait until later to build them.  Cutting a live irrigation main with a drainage line is not the correct order of the universe.  Most of those bunkers at Texas Tech have drainage trenched through clay and rock and you would STILL see the lines of disturbance if we'd waited until the next year to build them.  Plus the bunker depths had to be planned out well in advance to tie into the drainage lines that run through the site, because the site was so flat.

[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps TD and I were composing our posts at the same time. I would be curious to know what he thinks of my idea.

[RJ_Daley]

I also believe the method is best suited for renovations. 

I think with new course construction and routing, and designing in the location of hazard features, most every GCA knows shot patterns, and various levels of golfer's tendancies.   I also think most GCAs have a good idea of where their grading plans are going to direct ground roll of shots.  And, as Garland seems to indicate, most GCAs have plenty of range balls in the back of their trunks for their associates and pal golfers to come plunk down on a mat or prepared earth pad to tee up, where they can test a couple bucketsfull to see where they are going to likely hit the ball given the roughed in shaping.  (Didn't we even see MacKenzie doing this with Jones at the 8th at ANGC?)  Sure, most courses seem to tweak a bunker placement, or eliminate a few over the first 10 years sdue to distance advances and the like.  But, is that really that extensive of a practice to make it a standard design/construction practice?  What about measure twice, cut once? 

[tlavin]

I agree with Kyle Harris's sentiments as expressed in his post.  If one were to follow the rather simplistic "divots become bunkers approach", we'd have a lot of bunkers on the outside of doglegs, which seems stupid because that is where a player is "supposed" to place his shot, per the design of the hole.  If the player wants to buy the risk in shooting over the dogleg, he should pay the price if he misses (ball goes in water, trees or other hazard), but if he chooses to play the hole safely, he shouldn't be penalized by having to avoid another hazard.

[Jason Topp]

During a renovation a few years ago on my course, they successfully used this approach on four holes.  One example is on the 14th in the picture below:



The hole is 545, uphill and turns a little right.  The shack barely visible through the woods at the end of the fairway is about 20 yards left of the green.

Thus, the left side is preferable and the ground slopes left.  The bunker is cut into a little upslope right where I would otherwise hit my drive (245 to get in it, 265 to carry it). It is usually a 3 shot hole for me and I probably should hit a 3 wood short of the bunker.  Doing so, however, requires that I hit my next shot 225 and in the fairway to have a visible approach at the green which is severely contoured such that a ball above the hole is often a 3 putt.

Because I am more confident with the driver, I usually try and sneak a driver to the right of the bunker which brings trees right and left as well as the bunker more into play off the tee but, if successful, makes the 2nd shot easier.

It is interesting how the combination of a sloping green, slopes in the fairway and this bunker can tie together to force me to make a decision on my tee shot on a relatively straight hole that does not look that interesting from an aerial photograph.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Apparently, lots of people recommended bunkers go in last.  I found an old post by Craig Disher mentioning James Braid.

Then there's this thread referencing Harry Vardon's perspective.

Mark

[Sean_A]

I find this rather strange.  Ok, maybe you slap in the odd bunker because balls seem to finish there, its hard to keep maintained properly and the area drains off water.  For the vast majority of "hazard" placement I would think the archie should be able to predict/dictate the lines of play and decide if a bunker is the "hazard" he wants in place to mess with golfers (hopefully, many times the archie will refrain from bunkering in favour of something else).  I would hate to see this divot method used too much because I think regimented bunkering would be the result. 

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Gotta disagree with you on this one Sean. RTJ brought us regimented bunkering, which also could be called rough bunkering, because there is one in the rough on the left, and one in the rough on the right.

Where are balls going to finish in the absence of bunkers. I believe they would finish somewhere in the line of instinct. Therefore, if you place a bunker there, you start to create different lines of charm.

I say nix on continually playing line of instinct.

[Sean_A]

Gotta disagree with you on this one Sean. RTJ brought us regimented bunkering, which also could be called rough bunkering, because there is one in the rough on the left, and one in the rough on the right.

Where are balls going to finish in the absence of bunkers. I believe they would finish somewhere in the line of instinct. Therefore, if you place a bunker there, you start to create different lines of charm.

I say nix on continually playing line of instinct.

Garland

I don't think RTJ had it right either!  I would also take issue with balls finishing in the line of instinct if they are not in a bunker.  This is one of the primary reasons I hammer on about archies creating alternative problems to deal with other than bunkers - indirect tax - the greatest concept in golf design.  I know many folks don't think this sort of stuff works, but I know it does.  I just played Pennard today and it more than hit this fact home to me.  Give a guy a wonky lie with a bit of wind and you have a recipe for just about any outcome under the sun. 

Ciao

[Art Roselle]

"Should we select those portions of our fairways where we find the most divots and cut our bunkers there?  Should we place our hazards in those choice positions from which the best golfers would like to play their second shots?  One would hardly venture to suggest that.  And yet it might be a wiser principle to adopt than the one now so prevalent of marking the position of every faulty shot and cutting our bunkers there."  - Robert Hunter

That says it pretty well, although I think I like the spirit of the idea more than he seems to.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()