Bunkers next to water

« **on:** March 31, 2009, 01:39:53 PM »

What is the tree house's take on bunkers next to water? I've read on GCA.com that some aren't a fan of this type of architecture, so I wanted to post a few pics and get the input from the group. I realize these are likely better than most due to thier proximity to a large body of water, but I think this concept is shown to be viable, asethic, and the hole just might be not as good with out them.

« **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:44:31 PM »

It's okay at Pebble and Cypress.

« **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:56:46 PM »

The ones I dislike are the ones on the edge of a pond. I think the Dinah Shore course at MH has one that looks particularly obnoxious (not sure if this is the course, but I know it is one on the LPGA Tour). The obvious purpose seems to be to keep the ball from running into the water. Which is stupid. If you don't want the ball in the water, then don't put the pond there on the golf hole or vice versa. If you want sand near a pond, have a sandy beach.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:00:06 PM »

Some are not penel but protect your ball from going into the water.

Anthony

« **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:00:20 PM »

If water means ocean, my post is irrelevant. If it includes more basic hazards, read on (with the distinct possibility that my post will remain such).

As best I can tell, a bunker next to water saves a half shot most of the time. It may save a full shot, in fact.

I can think of a great number of examples of places you wouldn't want one, though. A bunker short of 12 at Augusta would ruin the hole by making it simple; the absence of the "save" (and, as importantly, its position in the routing) is what makes the hole what it is.

Aesthetically, a bunker next to water obviously does a great deal to frame a hole and, in the case of many of the examples you posted, provides a scale reference to the player.

WW

« **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:31:57 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 31, 2009, 01:56:46 PM

If you want sand near a pond, have a sandy beach.

Okay here you go Garland.

I must admit, if on vacation in the sunny DR, this meeting of sea and sand wouldn't bother me a bit. Can't you just taste the Cerveza Presidente?!

« **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:38:12 PM »

Quote from: Eric Smith on March 31, 2009, 02:31:57 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 31, 2009, 01:56:46 PM
If you want sand near a pond, have a sandy beach.

Okay here you go Garland.

I must admit, if on vacation in the sunny DR, this meeting of sea and sand wouldn't bother me a bit. Can't you just taste the Cerveza Presidente?!

Very nice, and it's on Anthony's slice side!

« **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:49:19 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 31, 2009, 02:38:12 PM

Very nice, and it's on Anthony's slice side!

I'll fill you in on a little secret, he doesn't slice - it's a 'controlled fade'. Very impressive.

Do wear ear plugs for the sound of his driver though. Ever remember your granny swatting horse flies on her carport with the frying pan and the sound of the frying pan making contact with the carport? There you have it.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:07:24 PM »

Quote from: Eric Smith on March 31, 2009, 02:49:19 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 31, 2009, 02:38:12 PM
Very nice, and it's on Anthony's slice side!

I'll fill you in on a little secret, he doesn't slice - it's a 'controlled fade'. Very impressive.

Do wear ear plugs for the sound of his driver though. Ever remember your granny swatting horse flies on her carport with the frying pan and the sound of the frying pan making contact with the carport? There you have it.

Eric,

That is the best driver Wal-Mart makes.

Anthony

« **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:13:15 PM »

Quote from: Eric Smith on March 31, 2009, 02:49:19 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 31, 2009, 02:38:12 PM
Very nice, and it's on Anthony's slice side!

I'll fill you in on a little secret, he doesn't slice - it's a 'controlled fade'. Very impressive.

Do wear ear plugs for the sound of his driver though. Ever remember your granny swatting horse flies on her carport with the frying pan and the sound of the frying pan making contact with the carport? There you have it.

Eric,

Anthony could have clued you in and kept you from missing the point. It was not to say Anthony would be going in the drink. It was to say that it was NOT on my slice side.

« **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:21:24 PM »

Your point wasn't missed Gar -I know you're a lefty.

Your previous post reminded me of how big a slice AG actually does play and I remember calling it that (controlled fade) while playing golf w/ him and was looking to rib him a little.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:34:57 PM »

Kalen:

Wow, what a wonderful thread. I love this kind of subject particularly about bunkers. I'll be on it later. Great diversity of photos, by the way, to comment on.

« **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:40:30 PM »

The first inclination should be to consider a bunker next to a water hazard as a double negative, and to be avoided. Of course there are exceptions to almost all rules of golf architecture. Having the bunkers next to oceans do appear much less like double negatives, as opposed to bunkers next to ponds and streams.

A second good exception is when the architect places the bunker so as to stop balls from going any further. In these instances, the architect believes the hole will be better with the bunker being used to limit the number of times the water hazard will come into play.

Otherwise, the hazard at a certain point on the course should either be a bunker or a water hazard, but not both.

In all the examples you posted the holes are on a bluff, significantly above the water. For many of these holes the bunker will limit the number of lost balls on cliff sides, or will limit the number of times one will be forced to try to play from a severe sidehill lie out of a lot of junk and rocks (a condition that is otherwise very rare on golf courses). In the pictures you posted, the bunkers will primarily keep the high handicapper on the course.

« **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:09:22 PM »

Thanks for all the comments so far. More examples, this time focusing on smaller bodies of water:

Are these less effective because they front up to ponds? Or in the end does it really only matter how they are done? All these work for me too, especially that hole at Tobacco Road.

« **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:19:43 PM »

If you find any like this last bunch from the golden age at the home of golf, put them up for all to see.

Can't find any? Gee, I wonder why?

Some of those above look ridiculous.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:52:31 PM »

Garland:

There aren't many bunkers next to ponds on classic golf courses, because there aren't too many ponds on them to begin with.

But, the first two I can think of are the cross bunkers between the green and the pond on the 18th at Pine Valley, and then the greenside bunkers on the 9th at Merion. Don't have pictures with me, sorry. Discuss.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:54:59 PM »

Tom,

Now you have done it. Now the Philly guys have your certification of them being the home of golf.

« **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:55:58 PM »

Antimetabolically and in all seriousness, bunkers next to water are fine but water next to bunkers is overkill -- wait, I meant underkill, and not in a good way!

Mark

« **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:56:51 PM »

Where were you looking for examples from? Scotland? See 18th hole, Carnoustie. None at St. Andrews, though.

« **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2009, 04:58:39 PM »

Leave it to the Sandman to bring up bunkers next to water.

Best
Dave

« **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2009, 05:20:02 PM »

We saw plenty of bunkers next to water at BHGC last weekend. Some work and some don't. But all of that water was what bothered me. Was anyone else horrified about how much water came into play on so many holes? More than half the holes, I'd guess. Brings to mind Bob Jones' comparison of sand and water hazards being like the difference between a fender bender and a plane crash, from the later there is no recovery.

« **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2009, 05:23:07 PM »

Quote from: Dave_Miller on March 31, 2009, 04:58:39 PM

Leave it to the Sandman to bring up bunkers next to wate.
Best
Dave

My two most favorite things on the golf course Dave!!

Garland,

Here is a pic of PV 18. You can take a look at the latest Merion thread to see various pics of 9 as well. More good examples of where this works well IMO.

« **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2009, 05:23:37 PM »

Merion is tragically guilty of the stupid sand/water mix on the 4th. Though I am not sure if those front bunkers aren't a later addition. Even so, guilty as charged.

I seem to recall Southern Hills having a seriously dopey bunker down the left of a par 3 short of water. Heavy sigh.

I generally despise the idea of sand next to water because I think water can be a great hazard if used judiciously - so why muck it up with a beach? I tend to think its archie arrogance and it should be shouted down by the masses right along with long green to tee walks.

Ciao

« **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2009, 05:29:41 PM »

Kalen,

Pine Valley and Merion are not in Scotland. I can understand your mistake, but Tom's was a huge surprise.

« **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2009, 05:43:38 PM »

Garland,

This is too easy. A very good case can be made that it was not only used but invented there. Look no further than Machrihanish. It was designed by none other than Old Tom and is one of the oldest courses in the world. If the 1st hole isn't the ultimate template for this sort of thing, then I'm not sure what is:

News:

Kalen Braley

Bill_McBride

Garland Bayley

Anthony Gray

Wade Whitehead

Eric Smith

Garland Bayley

Eric Smith

Anthony Gray

Garland Bayley

Eric Smith

TEPaul

Bill Shamleffer

Kalen Braley

Garland Bayley

Tom_Doak

Garland Bayley

Mark Bourgeois

Tom_Doak

Dave_Miller

Dave McCollum

Kalen Braley

Sean_A

Garland Bayley

Kalen Braley