[Patrick_Mucci]

Aerial photos don't show a feature/s as the golfer sees it, and the golfer's eyes are the only ones that count.

The strategic/tactical value and impact on play of geometric bunkering far outweighs how they look from 4,000 feet.

These bunkers were highly functional/effective in challenging the golfer.

Most inland bunkers are artificial.

What's more important, their function or their look ?

I like how tight they are to the putting surface, it makes for great hole locations.

And, don't respond that you can make them look more natural and function the same, I ain't buyin it.

[John Moore II]

Which is better depends on what the architect/course owner is trying to accomplish.
--From a pure architecture perspective, function is by far the most important thing. Let the bunker take whatever form is most convenient to shape, construct and maintain.
--However, if the owner wants a course to "WOW" people, like say Shadow Creek, Wynn (Hmm..Fazio, maybe a trend??) then I think the form will take the greater weight. Of the Fazio courses I have played, many of them tend to have bunkers in 'un-strategic' places just to add fluff value to the design.

--So, IMO, if architecture and shot values and strategic merit is the main factor in design, then function is (and should be) the most important design feature in the bunker, but if look and style are the most important design feature of the course, Form will (not should, mind you) become the more important of the two.

--And I agree, a sand hole in the middle of a forest or on the side of the mountain won't look natural, no matter what you do.

[TEPaul]

"Aerial photos don't show a feature/s as the golfer sees it, and the golfer's eyes are the only ones that count."


Listen, Patrick, don't say stuff like that about golfers generally because it isn't true. I you want to talk about what your eye sees, that's fine but try not to tell us what all other golfers see.

Furthermore, you're from North Jersey and nothing you say should be believed anyway for that reason. Worse than that you're a close neighbor of and probably a friend of Tony Soprano and everything you say should be taken as potentially criminal for that reason.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

This is Springhaven, right?  Who's work is this we see in these photos?  If not Raynor (which would be my uninformed guess), then this person too has a highly engineered "style". 

[Greg Murphy]

Patrick,

Some agreement on the function of a bunker would help frame the question, or rather the many varied functions of bunkers. One function of a bunker is to impede a ball from moving along or near the ground to a target. Long grass, water, depressions, mounds, trees, bush all share this function. A second function is to provide a unique surface to launch a ball from, sometimes more difficult than grass but not always (depends a lot on the length of grass and character of the sand). A third function may be to provide a barrier to advancing a ball toward a target through the air or on the ground, functioning here more like a tree than any other feature.

The great thing about bunkers is that elements of these first three functions may be mixed and matched to varying degrees to create variety and interesting shot making requirements and varied and somewhat random penalties for missed shots.

A fourth function of bunkers is to add interest and emotion to the "place of play", a function near irrelevant to shot making, but highly relevant to the experience evoked by the place of play.

The bunkers in your photos would obviously impede ground shots, create an "other than grass" launch pad and perhaps bar forward movement. But I think they would evoke a pretty flat emotional response.

[Richard Hetzel]

Natural and functional, rather than "over-engineered".

PS:  I was born in Oradell, NJ, what is the problem with north Jersey?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I guess my point on the other thread is why can't they be both?

As TePaul says, there will be some disagreement about what constitutes a functional bunker. I also think there will be disagreement about what is an attractive bunker. I know some people who prefer simply shaped bunkers over the MacKenzie style favored by many, for instance.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

This is Springhaven, right?  Who's work is this we see in these photos?  If not Raynor (which would be my uninformed guess), then this person too has a highly engineered "style". 

Ooops.  My questions answered on the Herbert Barker thread. 

[David Druzisky]

The best bunkering will satisfy both...and then some.  The merrit and value of any individual bunker can be debated but it is the overall composition of the course design, of which the bunkers are a part of, that matters.  Good design is a composition of attributes and in the end the quality of the golfing experience is defined by the quality of the composition.... If the theme of that particular design includes the geometric style of bunker, then so be it.  If the composition is good any bunker style will be accepted.

Also, so what if bunkers are artificial.

DbD

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying there is something inherently more strategic/tactical about geometrically-shaped bunkers?  Are you saying that geometric shapes, in and of themselves, heighten the shot-testing demands and challenge that golfers face? Are you suggesting that a more naturalistic aesthetic corresponds with a less-testing field of play?     
Genuine questions, not rhetorical ones.

Thanks
Peter

[SPDB]

These bunkers were highly functional/effective in challenging the golfer.

How do you know this?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

Are you saying there is something inherently more strategic/tactical about geometrically-shaped bunkers?


Based on what I've seen, generally, YES.

Are you saying that geometric shapes, in and of themselves, heighten the shot-testing demands and challenge that golfers face?

No

Are you suggesting that a more naturalistic aesthetic corresponds with a less-testing field of play?   


Generally, yes.

I contend that the geometric features that I've seen tend to be far more penal, therefore strategic, than most modern designs.  Bunker number and proximity to the putting surface is an element of the geometric bunkers I've seen.
 
Genuine questions, not rhetorical ones.

Genuine answers

[Sean_A]

Patrick -

I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

Are you saying there is something inherently more strategic/tactical about geometrically-shaped bunkers?


Based on what I've seen, generally, YES.

Are you saying that geometric shapes, in and of themselves, heighten the shot-testing demands and challenge that golfers face?

No

Are you suggesting that a more naturalistic aesthetic corresponds with a less-testing field of play?   


Generally, yes.

I contend that the geometric features that I've seen tend to be far more penal, therefore strategic, than most modern designs.  Bunker number and proximity to the putting surface is an element of the geometric bunkers I've seen.
 
Genuine questions, not rhetorical ones.

Genuine answers

Pat

How do "geometric" design bunkers challenge golfers more than non-"geometric" design bunkers? 

As I would call all bunker shapes geometric, please explain the difference between the types.  This seems to be a newish term used around here, but I am not sure of its meaning. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

If you can't understand the relationship between the proximity of the bunkers surrounding the putting surface and the putting surface, no explaination on my part will inform or enlighten you.

Sean Arble,

Ditto.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  No doubt many here overemphasize the importance of the aesthetic style of the course, and never bother to think about the underlying functionality.   This concerns me because more and more hack designers have figured out that if they put some jagged edges on their bunkers and maybe some bordering fescue, they can sell themselves as having a sensitivity and understanding of great courses with a superficially similar look.   

As for the geometric look, sometimes it may be just as functional, but I am not so sure this is always the case. 

Diagonals are a key component to quality strategic design.  Do any truly geometric designs present interesting diagonals?  Also, what about ground slope?   Don't you think the tendency with this style is to square ground slope, thus taking out much of the interest of the game?

Also, greens may present a problem, especially green contours. 

I realize are primarily talking about bunkers and I have gone beyond bunkers, but then some courses did so as well, didn't they?

As for proximity to the greens, it is only true if your greens square with your bunkers.   

[Sean_A]

SPDB,

If you can't understand the relationship between the proximity of the bunkers surrounding the putting surface and the putting surface, no explaination on my part will inform or enlighten you.

Sean Arble,

Ditto.

Pat

Thank you.  Very informative and useful as per usual. 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

I like how tight they are to the putting surface, it makes for great hole locations.

And, don't respond that you can make them look more natural and function the same, I ain't buyin it.

Patrick,

What is it specifically that you think makes it impossible to make natural looking bunkers as functional as geometric bunkers?

[Chris Kane]

Patrick, what is preventing a talented architect from building a natural-looking bunker tight to the putting surface, thus achieving function as well as a great look?

If that is impossible, are you suggesting that most architects go for look over function? (As I haven't seen many courses which bunkering like what is depicted in your photos).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

Modern maintainance practices.

David Elvins,

Ditto

Just today I had an interesting conversation with a Green Chairman and his Superintendent.

The issue of expanding the greens and having them feed into adjacent bunkers came up.

The desire to do so is there.
All agreed that it would enhance the tactical values of the holes being considered.

However, the current maintainance budget would have to be increased in order to attempt to match form to function.

The Superintendent is concerned that the alteration in maintainance and play in those areas would damage bunker tops, cause labor costs to increase, etc, etc..

I think the geometric designs worked in part because the maintainance practices and the culture of golf were different years ago, versus the demands for fairness, immaculate grooming and fringes, buffers, etc., etc..

[Chris Kane]

Modern maintainance practices.

Could you expand on this? 

I swear I've seen natural looking bunkers built very close to the putting surface, on modern golf courses.  Perhaps talented architects don't work in your part of the world 

[SL_Solow]

The relationship between bunker placement and maintenance practices is not a new one and is not dependent on the shape of the bunkers.  As early as the great depression. R.B. Harris was designing new courses and altering existing courses to provide a "gang mower's" space between the green and surrounding bunkers to allow a more efficient means of grass cutting.  While that might alter both the look and the playing characteristics of a hole, the reduced maintenance cost was deemed to be sufficient justification particularly for the failed clubs which Harris bought and operated as public courses.

[Mike Hendren]

If mutually exclusive, I'd go with function, function, function.  I'm quickly tiring of superfluous frilly bunkers.  I love the first photograph above with elements that remind me of the steeplechase courses here in Nashville. 

Shel's comments about R. B. Harris also give me an idea - trench shaped bunkers at a width that exactly matches today's sandpro for drive-through maintenance. 

Mike

[SPDB]

SPDB,

If you can't understand the relationship between the proximity of the bunkers surrounding the putting surface and the putting surface, no explaination on my part will inform or enlighten you.

Sean Arble,

Ditto.

You offered an opinion on the challenge of Springhaven's bunkers that you have neither played
nor seen except on a nearly century old aerial.

You used to rail against these pronouncements and I just wanted to see if you're tone has changed,
which it evidently has.

Don't bother explaining it to me, you have no more experience with these bunkers than I do.

[Ron Farris]

If form follows function, then if a bunker has no function then it should have no form.  If the definition or function of a bunker is to be a hazard, one that produces a fear of losing a stroke, then one would assume the form of the bunker would be such that it would produce a bogey or worse if hit into.  The great thing about golf course design and architecture is that the interpretation of the features of the course are determined by the golfer and Mother Nature.  If a bunker is un-reachable due to wind, does that give it a lack of function?  If a bunker is on the right side of the fairway and you hit it to the left rough, does the right bunker not have a function?  When it comes to geometric shapes, how does one determine the shape?
Should this bunker be rectangle in shape?

[Chuck Brown]

That last picture illustrates the point quite nicely.  Particularly in comparison to the balck-and-whites.
If somebody like Seth Raynor were confronted with a pool-table flat tract of land on which to build, artificial features conforming to geometrical shapes might actually pose MORE interest than what we all agree are the natural, irregular shapes of the courses we all know and love, (built on highly irregular duneland, etc.)...
But to force geometric lines onto what is already interesting landforms is false.  It is phony, and it is wrong.  It harms the existing land; it doesn't enhance it.
The ultimate answer, I say therefore, depends on the land you have available to you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()