The Art Of The Bunker--A Case Study #1

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The following post is to help hopefully revive an old thing we used to do at Golfweb's Golf Architecture Disccusion Group, the study of the art of sand hazards.

What I'm proposing to do here is place an image of a bunker that is to be anaylized, commented upon, and digested if you will, as to determining what exactly is this "art" is all about. It has nothing to do with proving any point or promoting any golf architect past or present, nor bashing any paticular style.

It has everything to do with each willing participant to form their own opinion as to what is their personal preference in this art.

The names of the architects and the courses or golf hole in the images provided are not the issue here. I urge all of you to refrain from posting any information about the bunker IF you should recognize it. We can do that at a later time. Anonymity of the above also allows us to properly observe all of the art without prejudice.

So all particpants...Get Ready, Get Set, GO!



-Please list all of the features that attract you and features that don't from this image above.  
-What type of thought went into producing (construction) of the bunker?
-Does the depth and the slope of the bunker relate to it's surrounds?
-List any thoughts at all that are in you mind.
-When you are finished listing the features, grade the bunker from 1-10, ala Doak Scale.

I'll post the next Case study on Xmas Day.

Happy Holidays All!

[John_McMillan]

Tommy -

For those of us who believe that bunkers should be played from, and not just looked at, it might help if you provide us with the orientation of play (where the green is in the photo - top, bottom, left, right), and whether the bunker is a fairway or greenside bunker.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'd say the shape is so irregular that it attempts to be something like contrived randomness while at the same time attempting to be symetrical. And It appears that the slope is a bit severe in the back rt. and if the sand is sparse everything would just collect to the bottom. I doubt this  would be found naturally.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is a greenside bunker. The angle is taken from the right side of the fairway. That cut you see is actually putting surface..

[Neal_Meagher]

The irregular yet at the same time symmetrical look that Adam notes is due to the evolution of the greenside bunker action.  Since the outer edges are not where one would be blasting sand to they have maintained their cape and bay appearance.

The probable reason for flashing up the sand on the side away from the green, and somewhat visually uncomfortable in my opinion, is to provide a glimpse of the bunker from the fairway (or tee).  By flashing up the extreme right side, the architect has attempted to show the player the extent of the bunker.

The randomness shown on the greenside has occurred over a period of several years, probably around 10 years or maybe a few more.  In fact, on a recent renovation of a Seattle area course that is about 45 years old, I went with a bit of this kind of treatment to suggest a normal evolution, making the approach side and far sides of the bunkers rather smooth while really roughing up the green sides.

Not one to be given to rating, but if I've got to I'll give it a 4.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I support the idea of your thread, but I think I may be having a problem similiar to what John McMillan expressed.

The angle of ths picture is a turn off.  I'd like to first see the bunker as I would see it when I was playing the hole.

Responding to your thread, I took a quick look at Geoff Shackelford's Cypress Point book.  You will notice that most, though certainly not all, of the pictures provide a view of bunkers the player would actually see in the normal course of his round.  It isn't just the angle that concerns me, it is the surrounding as well.

Take for instance, the right greenside bunker that Tom Doak built on #3 at Pacific Dunes.  It doesn't get much better!  But, my point is that so much of the appeal is how the bunker fits in to the entire green complex.  One could easily take a picture of this bunker that would conceal how appealing it is, but what would be the point?

Going forward I'd really suggest thinking very carefully about which pictures you select.  Getting the right angle and positioning is critical, in my judgement, to having a really worthwhile discussion and this clearly worthwhile topic.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim, I think you are somewhat missing the point.

Maybe I haven't worded it properly, but the aspect of this is about the ART more then anything.  Not so much about the play. So far Neal and Adam have properly visualized. (But Adam forgot his rating!)

How does this bunker look. Forget about how it plays. Think about the look. Lets see what your eye captures compared to John's. It takes some imagination and inner-thought.

Does the bunker maintenance of clean edges tickle your fancy? etc.

Visualize............

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,

If the orientation of this picture is from the right side of the fairway approaching the green, my first impression is that it is part of what I often see in many modern designs...a concave design.  In fact, it appears that the right side of the bunker is actually at a higher level of elevation than the green surface, and the bunker as a whole seems quite shallow.  

In fact, the mounding built up along the right of the bunker makes it appear quite artificial and although it's tough to see on the edge of the picture, creates a "horizon line" that seems to block out the view of what is behind it.  

At points along the front and back edges, it almost appears as it it would be possible to putt out of the bunker, especially given the clean edging.  The shaping, in medical terms, is unremakable.

Again, based on what I'm interpreting as the orientation of this bunker to the fairway and green that you described, it's perhaps average...so, a 3 on the Doak Scale.

[A_Clay_Man]

I left the rating off on purpose but since I've been asked I'll give you my first impression which was a 2.

What I don't like about it is the standardized cookie cutter smooth edges. I can almost imagine some rugged dunesland monster that hugs the greenside. If this is from a course that is old enough or has the sandy soil. I'd guess not on both counts and the flashing acts like eye candy and is basically a containment area for shots headed long right.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I'm not a fan of clean edge bunkers.  That's the easy part.

But, why not show me this bunker from a different angle?

Again, I would go back to #3 at Pacific Dunes.  Isn't the brilliance of what TD did how the bunker fits in?  How it looks from 250 yards, then 200 and 150, etc.......

The bunker you have selected may be downright horrible, but I'd at least like to see at in the same manner Mackenzie had his photographer capture his fine work at Cypress Point.

Follow the example of the Good Doctor!

[RJ_Daley]

I also would temper any judgement about the bunkers total design to performance ratio and placement in relation to its' surrounds, without being able to see the overall setting.  And, a lot of this is relies and is subjective to the maintenance regimin of a particular course.


But, I'll do the Rohrshock test and say on first impression I like it when considered in context with its maintenance stye of clean edges.  I very much like the inner edge that appears like a big breaker wave of green spilling into the main body of the bunker.  It is a bunker that flashes high away from the putting surface which as stated above may be to give the player from a distance a good glimpse of the scope of the bunker.  It also has the majority of the bunker flashed with a lie facing down into the putting surface calling for a difficult shot to a possibly narrow putting surface that may be sort of a kidney green shape.  If the green also slopes away from the bunker and the lie is down into the green, it could mean a real killer of a shot to hold the green and play for an up and down sandy.

So, based on the shape and my liking the roll of the green wave spilling into the main body, I'll give it a 6.

(can you imagine if the lip on the inside were allowed to become irregular uncut turf with a browning fescue or native edge to look more like sea foam of a breaking wave...

[A_Clay_Man]

If RJD sees a rolling wave. Is it the right bunker on the "Duel" hole?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tommy
I'll give it points for having an irregular outline, although it is difficult to determine its real shape from the angle of the photo. A fairly interesting outline, but not super interesting - beats an oval - a little too clean however for my tastes. There was an attempt to make it 3-D by bringing the sand up the bowl the bunker was built in, but its not really 3-D and is just in irregualr bunker in an oval bowl. There wasn't any attempt to meld the bunker with native surrounds and there appears to be some native junk in the foreground. I'd give it a 5. I hope Jim Lewis doesn't see this, he'll blow a gasket!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim, Particpate/Don't particpate. This isn't about Tom Doak, Tom Fazio, Tom Naccarato or Tom MacWood. It isn't about Pacific Dunes, Pelican Hill, Paraparamu or Pitreavie either. It is only about the Art of Bunkers.

[Patrick Hitt]

Tommy,
I can't judge a bunker by a photo. The depth and size are too difficult for me to perceive. For me, much of the artistry is in the scale and effect of the hazard. I can say that I like the outline but not the way the bunker moves up the slope away from the green.
I could show a picture of the front greenside bunker on M East #3 to demonstrate what I mean about lens perception if I had a place to post it. There is no way to tell that the bunker is frightfully deep without a human in the photo. Size and depth matter to me as much as shape when giving character points.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
The bunker is about 17 feet long, by 8 feet wide. It isn't a terribly huge or deep bunker at all.

Sorry for the lack of better definition, but I'm digging these images up from my collection of photographs. I'm late for a tee time right now, but later on maybe I will try to get the flag in there without showing much else.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You are making me late for my golf game!!!!!

[Patrick Hitt]

Tommy,
With the cold wind blowing snow through the building canyons of downtown Chicago, my sympathy for your tardiness is limited. Based on the limited evidence i will rate the bunker a 3.5.

[Neal_Meagher]

Tommy,

I'm quite sure you meant 17 yards by 8 yards.  Otherwise, it would be a small bunker indeed.

By the way, although it has no bearing on this as an excercise as stated in you instructions, I am 99.99% certain I know where this is.  Let's just say that I would recognize that kind of green anywhere.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Neal, YARDS was exactly what I meant. Sorry for the mix-up!

And yes, you should know where this is, but remember, this isn't about who or where. I didn't want it to be a negative thing. ONLY positive study.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

One of the best recent efforts to present the "art of bunkers" is The Sandbelt by Paul Daley and David Scaletti.  Browse through their book and you will find evidence of the point I'm trying to make:

If you want to study the "art of bunkers", then you must be sure to include photographs which present the bunker as the golfer sees them.

Why would you ask me to "visualize"?  I'm just the golfer....I get to see the finished product in the context of the bunker's surroundings (or like David Scaletti presents them).

The only person that has to "visualize" is the architect.  He must decide where to put the bunker.  He must decide the shape and form the bunker will take.  He is the creator.  He must "visualize".

My impression is that you are too hung up on concealing who built the bunker to adequately present the bunker with whatever appeal it may or may not have.

Does it matter that I know the bunker you presented was built by Bill Coore?  Does that make it good or bad?  Shouldn't I be able to articulate why I think Bill did a good or a poor job?

Again, I like your topic, but think you should follow the example set by people like Alister Mackenzie and David Scaletti: show us the bunker in its best light, show us what we really see as golfers.  Then, we can really have a good discussion.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
I guess I didn't make myself very clear. This isn't about who built th ebunker or bunkers, but to actuaollyu obeserve many architectural styles.

To further shock you, the bunker in the picture is far from anything remote to what C&C build.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim- How could a person know what your orientation to this bunker is or will be? If this were a short par 4 this could be your approach angle. I'd say you hit a damn fine shot! Look at how perfect the angle to the flag is. Can't you put yourself in other positions (mentally) just from seeing this picture?

[RJ_Daley]

Is it a Fazio bunker and green at an early stage just after opening of the golf course from the grow-in period?  It doesn't look too mature yet...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

No No No Dick, You will get none of that information out of me at this time!:)

But at the time of the picture, the course was still very immature. So much at the grand opening, the constructors were still laying turf 45 minutes before the shotgun start!

However, this picture was taken some months after that.
(Neal, if that doesn't seal it for you, I don't know what will!)