Bunker Depth

[Dan Herrmann]

What are the rules of thumb for bunker depth?   

I've played some places where you can hit a 5-wood from a fairway bunker.  I've also played fairway bunkers where an 8 iron is just about all you can hit.

I propose for discussion that great designs use bunker depth as a key, but underappreciated factor in their designs. 

Can a great design have nothing but shallow bunkers?  Deep bunkers?  Or is a variety the "secret"?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I can think of no great course that has predominantly shallow bunkers.

Be careful when asking for rule of thumb, as Brauer will tell you shortly. 

[ed_getka]

I think the only rule of thumb is that a bunker should exact a portion of a stroke more often than not. Sometimes you will get lucky and be able to get to the hole in regulation. By having some chance of being able to get to the green I think one is tempted more to take the risk of skirting the bunker. If the bunker in question is impossible or nearly so it would only be by accident that one would end up in it.

[Anthony Fowler]

I really like it when the architect creates severe penalties (such as deep bunkers)  but provides generous opportunity to avoid those penalties.  Bunkers are particularly good here because you still have a chance to recover if you find the hazard.  I think Pacific Dunes is a great example.  Some of the fairway bunkers are very severe and in strategic locations.  However, if you choose to play safely, it is easy to avoid them.

In the opposite case, it can be very disappointing to find yourself in a beautiful bunker with no challenge involved in recovery.  Fairway bunkers are very often better than the rough.  I think Eugene Country Club is one example, where the beautiful, white bunkers don't add much in terms of challenge or architectural interest.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bunker Depth.

Perhaps before commenting on depths we should decide why bunkers are there in the first place. I am of course not referring to the formation of bunkers (either as natural features or sheep hollows etc) but to their use on a golf course.

I believe that they are and have always been traps, both guarding the Green and fairways. But to be effective traps they IMHO must be beep, as shallow bunkers are neither a serious deterrent nor for that matter much of an obstacle let alone a trap.

Our own Mr Doak recently mentioned something along the lines of GB architects seem to have forgotten how to construct a bunker. I don’t necessary disagree but I would go one step further and question if modern designers and architects are fully using the bunker as trap. If as traps as I mentioned above I believe they should be deep, but if just to be used a feature because golf course tend to have bunkers then that is a waste of time, money and the on going maintenance costs.

But again I ask what are bunkers for, from my understanding of history they were sand traps, the word we should all note is the word traps. Correctly positioned they come into play and challenge the golfer – does he throw caution to the wind and hit the long ball or does he play the wise game. In other words bunkers make or break a course, but I feel that today most designers tend to play safe (but not all).

The game of golf is about the challenge, the fun and enjoyment of achieving ones target/aims, deterrents should be that Deterrents and not a weak and wet handshake.  A shallow bunker even around a Green is just that, weak and limp and has little real place let alone function in the game.

Well that’s my opinion, for what its worth.

Melvyn 

[Sean_A]

Melvyn

I agree 100%.  Bunkers need to be as deep as it takes to make them effective traps (ie paying the penalty for greed or a lack of understanding of one's abilities), but they also need to be well placed and not over-used.  The over-use of bunkering eventually reduces the effectiveness of the trap concept.  After a few run ins most guys won't fall for the trap - assuming the bunkers are deep enough to take their pound of flesh.  This is why (for the most part) I can't understand courses which have 75 or 100 bunkers.  Loads of those bunkers must necessarily not be of the trap concept.  They are placed not to entice, but merely to punish, or worse yet, to guide a player (boweling alley style) or save loose shots from oblivion (effectively negating what is often good golfing ground).  Besides, once there are a certain number out there (and I think TOC is the perfect example of this), many guys just hit and hope.  There is sensory over-load even if the bunkers have to be imagined as is often the case at TOC. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe Pete Dye should rename is book "Bury Me in a Pot Bunker" to "Bury Me in a Pot Trap"     The term "trap" came about in the 1913 U.S. Open but I won't elaborate as many of you know it.  Actually "bunkers" were not called "bunkers" in the early origins of the game.  These sand filled areas were simply obstacles they lay in the path of the golfer trying to navigate their way to the hole.  They were "hazardous situations".  They were not even called hazards.  But having said this, I agree that shallow or what I call two dimensional "bunkers" are a pet peeve of mine.  I have never cared for them except in areas where they run for long stretches (like what some of us call "waste bunkers or waste areas".  Sean makes a good point about the over use of bunkers.  Sometimes less is more if used properly.  I would beg to differ with him, however, about TOC.  When Tiger played four rounds during the Open and never found a bunker, that should say something about "sensory over-load" and your hit and hope comment.  Play the course a half dozen or so times and you will begin to appreciate how special the bunkering really is. 

[Sean_A]

Maybe Pete Dye should rename is book "Bury Me in a Pot Bunker" to "Bury Me in a Pot Trap"     The term "trap" came about in the 1913 U.S. Open but I won't elaborate as many of you know it.  Actually "bunkers" were not called "bunkers" in the early origins of the game.  These sand filled areas were simply obstacles they lay in the path of the golfer trying to navigate their way to the hole.  They were "hazardous situations".  They were not even called hazards.  But having said this, I agree that shallow or what I call two dimensional "bunkers" are a pet peeve of mine.  I have never cared for them except in areas where they run for long stretches (like what some of us call "waste bunkers or waste areas".  Sean makes a good point about the over use of bunkers.  Sometimes less is more if used properly.  I would beg to differ with him, however, about TOC.  When Tiger played four rounds during the Open and never found a bunker, that should say something about "sensory over-load" and your hit and hope comment.  Play the course a half dozen or so times and you will begin to appreciate how special the bunkering really is. 

Mark

Ah, if only all of us could compare ourselves to Tiger than the world would be perfect, in golfing terms anyway.  When I can hit my 2-4 irons as accurately Tiger I will be sure to give TOC another go without the hit and hope attitude.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
We can agree to disagree about the bunkering on TOC but I'm curious, how many times have you played there?  I know the first time I played it, I was overwelmed as well and really felt I had no idea where to hit it.  That changed with each subsequent round to the point where one day, I was only in one bunker for the 18 holes.  Any by the way, it was a "deep" one 

If you remember, a pretty decent golfer by the name of Bobby Jones took a round or two to figure out and fall in love with the place as well 

[Philippe Binette]

there are no rules of thumb... if you use a rules of thumb... you can kiss greatness goodbye

[Anthony Gray]

 


  One observation. Most fairway bunkers in the US allow you to advance the ball foward. This is not always the case across the pond. It would be a bold move for an architect to build a course in the US that would include an automatic one stroke penalty for a shot into a fairway bunker that occurs often in the UK. No absolutes.

  Anthony

[Ron Farris]

Rule of Thumb:  If it looks like an animal made it and it fits naturally into the environment it might (might) be accepted by those on this discussion group

[Mark_Fine]

Ron,
What do you think of these "traps"? 

[Mark_Fine]

How about this one?

[Anthony Gray]

  Mark,

  I would say playable.

  Anthony

[Jim_Kennedy]

Placement first, depth second. Isn't a well placed 'shallow' trap more relevant than an ill placed 'deep' one? There are 'shallow' traps that you can walk right into that are positioned 10' or more below the green, in effect they are 'deep'. 

[Bill_McBride]

Maybe Pete Dye should rename is book "Bury Me in a Pot Bunker" to "Bury Me in a Pot Trap"     The term "trap" came about in the 1913 U.S. Open but I won't elaborate as many of you know it.  Actually "bunkers" were not called "bunkers" in the early origins of the game.  These sand filled areas were simply obstacles they lay in the path of the golfer trying to navigate their way to the hole.  They were "hazardous situations".  They were not even called hazards.  But having said this, I agree that shallow or what I call two dimensional "bunkers" are a pet peeve of mine.  I have never cared for them except in areas where they run for long stretches (like what some of us call "waste bunkers or waste areas".  Sean makes a good point about the over use of bunkers.  Sometimes less is more if used properly.  I would beg to differ with him, however, about TOC.  When Tiger played four rounds during the Open and never found a bunker, that should say something about "sensory over-load" and your hit and hope comment.  Play the course a half dozen or so times and you will begin to appreciate how special the bunkering really is. 

Mark

Ah, if only all of us could compare ourselves to Tiger than the world would be perfect, in golfing terms anyway.  When I can hit my 2-4 irons as accurately Tiger I will be sure to give TOC another go without the hit and hope attitude.

Ciao

If I recall that 2000 Open correctly, I don't think Tiger was hitting long irons off the tee a la Hoylake 2006, I think he was hitting a lot of drivers on perfect lines.

For example, on #12 he was hitting driver OVER the green, which effectively avoids the nest of troublesome and hidden bunkers out in front.

Incredible golf.

At Hoylake the bunkers are generally to the sides, so he was focusing on straight and the ground was so firm it worked.  TOC was firm too but the bunkers are strewn everywhere so that Hoylake strategy really wouldn't work.

[Rick Sides]

I think another aspect of bunkers that is important in the conversation is the type of sand.  I have played at course with high bunkers and compact sand and it was easier to esacape these bunkers then shallow bunkers with really thick, fluffy sand.  I think from a golfer's perspective, the type of sand in the bunker can make a world of difference.

[Philippe Binette]

question for everybody,

what course is the first picture from?

[Mark_Fine]

Philippe,
Do you like it?

[PCCraig]

I either like my bunkers very deep or very shallow.

Very deep because it makes it a true hazard. One very deep bunker around the green can be tougher than a lake for high handicapers. I also love a pot bunker in the middle of the fairway in the landing area aka the 18th at the TPC Boston.

Otherwise I know courses that have greenside bunkers on traditional tree lined courses that have been filled up so much over the years that they now rest ABOVE the green. So you essentially walk up to get to your ball, and are hitting a slight downhill bunker shot...kinda neat.

[MHiserman]

Those who prefer deep bunkers...
I was amazed by the left greenside bunker at Stone Eagle.  It may be 40-45 feet in depth with a steep face.
The bunker was so fantastically difficult, like a junkyard dog reminding you to KEEP OUT!, I had to give it a try after the round. 
Let's just say you may need to ignore the USGA loft standard to get out in one swing.

Would the beach in front of Cypress Point's 17th tee be considered a bunker if one were to pull the ball while hitting to the 16th green?

[Scott Macpherson]

Re Tiger, 'Traps' and TOC,

I did some research into that, and spoke with Steve Williams, and while there are 112 bunkers on TOC only 3-8 (from memory) came into play for Tiger each round. Sean was right, Tiger did try to hit it over the 12th green each round, but the last bunker was considered 'in-play'.... and that bunker WILL slow you down if you get up against the face (been there, done that!)

Scott

[ed_getka]

Placement first, depth second. Isn't a well placed 'shallow' trap more relevant than an ill placed 'deep' one? There are 'shallow' traps that you can walk right into that are positioned 10' or more below the green, in effect they are 'deep'. 

Good point Jim, the depth below the playing surface of the hole is a good distinction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Today, bunker depth tends to be dictated by the end user ?

I doubt that a local club would construct deep bunkers with fronting berms, replicating the bunkering at Oakmont.

Golf today, at local clubs, presents a "kinder and gentler" test than golf in the early 20th century.

Golf courses have to be viewed as a "fair test"

Once the elment of fairness is introduced you can kiss deep and/or penal bunkers goodbye.

With the need to accomodate Seniors, Juniors and Women golfers/members, bunker depths have gotten shallower, less penal.

One of the things that's always mystified me is the following.

One of the lures of the game is the inherent challenge it presents.

Yet, club after club, golfer after golfer wants to diminish that challenge in order to cater to the weaker member.

How many great features have been softened and/or eliminated to accomodate the greater majority of members ?

Architectural disfigurations would seem to be highest in those areas where those in power sought to make the feature/hole/course more "user friendly.

While placement can be critical, its significance is muted without meaningful depth.