Overbunkering

[Ally Mcintosh]

Can we talk about this?

Such great names as Tom Simpson and Sean Arble are well noted for their dislike of using bunkers as hazards where no bunker will suffice...

And in general, most Architects and Architecture afficienados agree with this principle...

Yet all the Golden Age architects bunkered many of their courses to bejaysus... The classic American courses and the classic British courses all have (or had) a plethora of sand (look at some of the Heathland courses - Sunningdale Old for example)...

Was all this bunkering strategic?... Surely not... Were they included on sandy sites to leave less areas that had to be maintained (given the width of many of the fairways)?

Why were there so many bunkers yet we curse them today? Bearing in mind that John Low said that no bunker could be misplaced, what constitutes overbunkering?

Thanks...

[Ally Mcintosh]

On the one hand, my paranoia is telling me that this was a dumb topic and everyone has just let it slide...

On the other hand, my arrogance is telling me that maybe the topic was so good that no one has anything further to add...

Too vague I suspect. Even Mr. Arble didn't bite...

[Sean_A]

Ally

I don't mean to leave you in a lurch, but I strongly suspect everyone knows my views of archies over-utlizing bunkering as a cop out to the use of alternative natural hazards.  Much of bunkering is a bit of showmanship so archies can justify their fees by making it obvious to all about their design input.  Few have the confidence (assuming they care to) to build a subtle design for the punter to discover over time - this sort of design won't win awards.  In short, architectural diversity and merit is one on a list of criteria owners and archies consider.  That and of course there is a genuine need for nastiness where championship courses are concerned.  Of course, we have many, many more wannabe championship courses than we do the real thing!

Ciao

[JC Urbina]

Ally

To sacred to talk about.

[Kyle Harris]

Ally,

I'm wondering if the overbunkering is perhaps a result of a wider variety of missed shots and game styles persistent in that era.

Could the bunkering be a response to the idea of providing the most interest for the most golfers?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I'm wondering if the overbunkering is perhaps a result of a wider variety of missed shots and game styles persistent in that era.

Could the bunkering be a response to the idea of providing the most interest for the most golfers?

Maybe Kyle... In fact, quite possibly.... But in reality, what has changed today?.... Why do some Architects insist on putting all their fairway hazards around the 260 to 280 yard turning point?... What interest does that bring to the short hitter playing his monthly medal off the back tee?

I do think maintenance practices had something to do with it though... Bunkers were effectively unmaintained areas in days gone past and they are rarely that way now...

I am not advocating a heavy use of bunkers... I am just pointing out a disconnect between what we consider our ideals for modern times and what in reality are our ideals based on the old courses that are revered...

Tom Simpson's thoughts on the subject are my favourite. It is a good part of the reason I am a fan of his.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ally,

Remember, too, that throughout his Depression era, PGA of America tour, A.W. Tillinghast removed hundreds of bunkers from courses across the United States; and, Alister Mackenzie became an advocate of using as few bunkers as possible later in his career. His original design at Augusta National is a good example. And, reportedly, his 1930s design at Bayside (NLE) in New York was as well. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

Remember, too, that throughout his Depression era, PGA of America tour, A.W. Tillinghast removed hundreds of bunkers from courses across the United States; and, Alister Mackenzie became an advocate of using as few bunkers as possible later in his career. His original design at Augusta National is a good example. And, reportedly, his 1930s design at Bayside (NLE) in New York was as well. 

That is true.... So can we say that there were major faults (going by today's ideals of less is more) in the initial bunker philosophies of the architects who designed many of the classic courses?

Did a lot of them decide after the thirties that they would actually prefer to see less bunkering?... Was it just a fashion?... Why are courses with 100 plus bunkers still the ones we love?

Or was Tillinghast just keeping himself in work?

[Kalen Braley]

Ally,

I think this is indeed a good question as it seems a bit of a paradox wrapped around an enigma. Having been a student of GCA.com for just over 2 years now, my take away is this.

1)  On naturally sandy courses where the entire site is sand based, it doesn't bother me one bit to see bunkers-a-plenty, whether in play or not...especially when they are natural looking, even if they were built after the fact. Remember naturalism says, it only has to look natural not actually be natural.  Courses that come to mind like this are CPC, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, etc.

2)  On sites that are obviously not sandy/duneish, then overbunkering with the big hairy blowouts and bunkers everywhere can indeed look way overdone and out of place.  And while I'm not near as anti-bunker as Sean in these situations, I think it good to show a bit of restraint.

Just my $.02

[Scott Weersing]

Ally, Let me ask you another question:

1. Are bunkers on a hole in order to frame a hole, even though many are not in play?

I think new courses have too many bunkers which then result in high maintenance cost and in 10 years, a high replacement cost. As to old courses, I am not so sure why so many bunkers.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ally,

Tillinghast's efforts on behalf of the PGA of America certainly stem from the economics of the time. It was his job to advise many golf courses that were attempting to reduce maintenance costs, and filling in some bunkers assisted with this endeavour.

I think sustainability still has a lot to do with minimizing the use of bunkers. I think Tillinghast, Mackenzie and others saw it this way too, back in the day.

[jim_lewis]

I thought Pete Dye invented "over-bunkering"!  Colleton River is the poster child.

Jim Lewis

[Kyle Harris]

Ally,

I'm wondering if the overbunkering is perhaps a result of a wider variety of missed shots and game styles persistent in that era.

Could the bunkering be a response to the idea of providing the most interest for the most golfers?

Maybe Kyle... In fact, quite possibly.... But in reality, what has changed today?.... Why do some Architects insist on putting all their fairway hazards around the 260 to 280 yard turning point?... What interest does that bring to the short hitter playing his monthly medal off the back tee?

I do think maintenance practices had something to do with it though... Bunkers were effectively unmaintained areas in days gone past and they are rarely that way now...

I am not advocating a heavy use of bunkers... I am just pointing out a disconnect between what we consider our ideals for modern times and what in reality are our ideals based on the old courses that are revered...

Tom Simpson's thoughts on the subject are my favourite. It is a good part of the reason I am a fan of his.

Ally,

I think one of these things that has changed since then is the severity of the penalty in mishitting - specifically in terms of distance.

For the past few weeks I've been playing with a persimmon driver and it astonishes me how much different the ball behaves on mishits. Also, since the margins for error were so much slimmer with older equipment I would imagine such mishits were more common. As I play some of the older courses in the area I am discovering just why some of the features (not limited to bunkers) were built the way they were. In fact, I think the modern courses are a bit easier to handle with old equipment!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally, Let me ask you another question:

1. Are bunkers on a hole in order to frame a hole, even though many are not in play?

I think new courses have too many bunkers which then result in high maintenance cost and in 10 years, a high replacement cost. As to old courses, I am not so sure why so many bunkers.

Hi Scott,

I agree on a lot of modern courses - Too many bunkers placed in too many orthodox positions leading to high maintenance costs. But it is the trend in the older classic courses that I am interested in...

I think Kalen makes a good point about sandy sites versus parkland clay sites... And seeing as all the old classic courses are built on sandy sites, they can hold a lot more bunkers naturally without seeming "overbunkered"...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

Tillinghast's efforts on behalf of the PGA of America certainly stem from the economics of the time. It was his job to advise many golf courses that were attempting to reduce maintenance costs, and filling in some bunkers assisted with this endeavour.

I think sustainability still has a lot to do with minimizing the use of bunkers. I think Tillinghast, Mackenzie and others saw it this way too, back in the day.

Hi Jeff,

I absolutely agree - I am in no way arguing with the sustainability issues of having a large amount of bunkers... I am just questioning our modern day perception of "the less bunkering the better" when juxtaposed against all the courses we love so much...

Let me also highlight that I agree with less bunkering where possible... Nothing I like more than a challenging bunkerless short par-4...

Thanks,
Ally

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ally,

It's my presumption that people who think a lot about golf architecture -- many who participate here, like Sean Arble and myself; and a number of the old-time architects, such as Simpson and Mackenzie for example -- simply realize(d) that there are so many more thoughtful and creative ways to make interesting golf holes than peppering the landscape with bunkers.

It's been said over and over, over the years, that a single bunker placed exactly where golfer's would like go is all that's really needed to make the game interesting.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally -

I'm not sure it's a coincidence that around the same time Dr. Mackenzie was arguing against blind shots on golf courses he was also bunkering the hell out of them.

I think it was a phase (and one that comes and goes). It seems that lots of people in the 1910s and 20s were watching where golfers mishit their shots and then putting bunkers exactly there; in short, making their golf courses harder, but in a way they considered more fair than having blind shots.  

Then and again, the idea of a stern test rises up to the fore, for architects and golfers both (though I don't know who leads and who follows).

I think bunkers have always been the easiest (and least imaginative) way to make golf courses harder (or to appear that way).  I think architects  then and now know this, and thus end up putting so much attention on bunker shapes and sizes and naturalness so as to divert attention away from this fact.    

Peter

[Jeff_Mingay]

Peter brings up a good point, with regard to aesthetics.

It's too important to "wow" people visually to attract attention as a golf course designer. And, "fancing looking" bunkers do the trick. This is part of the problem, if in fact you view too many bunkers as a problem, as well.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff, Peter,

I agree with what you are saying... However, you are not tackling the critical point that many (if not most) of the courses we love are absolutely littered with bunkers... Why do we love them so much if there are fundamentally more interesting ways to design (and define) a golf hole?

I'll try and answer my own question - We love them because in general there was more thought given to interesting and diverse placement of bunkers and more artistry applied to their design in the Golden Age than in many of the post WWII courses...

A course that is "overbunkered" is one where bunkers are used time and time again in the same positions on each of the holes creating similar playing options and no variety... as in many identikit designs in the second half of the 20th century...

Thanks,
Ally

As an aside, one of my colleagues believes in a "Chaos Theory in Golf Course Strategy"... In other words he believes that if you scatter hazards about anywhere at all, they will create their own strategy in how to play the hole.... What say you?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ally,

I agree with your friend's chaos theory. And, many classic courses from the pre-World War II era seem to be bunkered in such a fashion.

Conversely, it's always amazed me that so many other courses are bunkered out of the Trent Jones handbook, to "trap" golfers who are just slightly off on an otherwise perfect shot. In other words, bunkers 260-280 yards off the tee, left and right of a sliver of fairway; another pair flanking what's presumed to be the "second landing area"; and, of course, two more guarding each side of the green.

As you say, this type of repetation and dictatorial design gets really old, really quick.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I agree with your friend's chaos theory. And, many classic courses from the pre-World War II era seem to be bunkered in such a fashion.

Conversely, it's always amazed me that so many other courses are bunkered out of the Trent Jones handbook, to "trap" golfers who are just slightly off on an otherwise perfect shot. In other words, bunkers 260-280 yards off the tee, left and right of a sliver of fairway; another pair flanking what's presumed to be the "second landing area"; and, of course, two more guarding each side of the green.

As you say, this type of repetation and dictatorial design gets really old, really quick.

I guess you are really describing a return to Penal design philosophies there... or "Highway Design"...

I visited the DMK course at Queenwood last year... Lovely looking course, wanting to be a heathland but not quite getting there (not being based on as good soil) with a few strange vegetation decisions...

Anyway, many of the par-4's and 5's had these large bunkers on the outside of the doglegs... I was told that the architects had added 30 additional bunkers to better "frame" the holes just a couple of years after the 2001 opening... I'm not sure whose idea this was (if indeed true) but it was a bit sad to hear all the same...

[Sean_A]

Ally

I think there a lot of examples of classic era designed courses which were fairly lightly bunkered.  More or less, the big guns are the ones which tend to have lot of bunkers and the second tier tend not to - probably because the big guns were used for championships or they wanted to be used AND the big guns have continually had bunkers added over the years. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

I think there a lot of examples of classic era designed courses which were fairly lightly bunkered.  More or less, the big guns are the ones which tend to have lot of bunkers and the second tier tend not to - probably because the big guns were used for championships or they wanted to be used AND the big guns have continually had bunkers added over the years. 

Ciao

Sean, but the big guns are the ones we like, bunkers and all...

I'm afraid that I don't buy your theory that bunkers have been continually added to many of these courses... Maybe recently by Open Doctors and the like... but that was after a period of bunker reduction... Shinnecock had way more bunkers in 1937 than it does now to take just one example...

[Joel_Stewart]

I thought Pete Dye invented "over-bunkering"!  Colleton River is the poster child.

I was thinking Pete Dye also but Whistling Straits.  Look at the back hill in this photo.

[Sean_A]

Ally

I think there a lot of examples of classic era designed courses which were fairly lightly bunkered.  More or less, the big guns are the ones which tend to have lot of bunkers and the second tier tend not to - probably because the big guns were used for championships or they wanted to be used AND the big guns have continually had bunkers added over the years. 

Ciao

Sean, but the big guns are the ones we like, bunkers and all...

I'm afraid that I don't buy your theory that bunkers have been continually added to many of these courses... Maybe recently by Open Doctors and the like... but that was after a period of bunker reduction... Shinnecock had way more bunkers in 1937 than it does now to take just one example...

Ally

I am thinking more of British courses, but I do think a great many championship courses in the States have added bunkering and relatively few have less than they did say 75 years ago.  Though I have very little experience with the big guns having only played Oakland Hills, Pinehurst and Merion.  I can comfortably say that Merion is over bunkered, but many are really not an issue.  Oakland Hills is the classic case of chasing championship grandeur through bunkering.  Pinehurst didn't strike me as overly bunkered.  Hows that for a mixed bag!!! 

One important aspect we haven't mentioned is the combination of mega bunkering and brutal rough.  Despite my dislike for the easy option of slapping bunkers all over the place, sometimes, the sand combined with rough is the real killer. 

Ciao