[Sean_A]

Ben:

Your post underlines the assumption of this thread, but an assumption I don't necessarily agree with -- that bunkers are necessarily expensive to build and to maintain.

In Scotland, they spend a lot of money and crew hours rebuilding those revetted faces, but during the playing season they send one man around the course in the morning, walking, and carrying a rake to take care of them.  I guess that costs $30,000 a year more than having no bunkers, or about $1 per round.  Are bunkers worth $1 per round?

Also, at least on sandy sites, building bunkers doesn't cost very much at all.  It certainly costs less to leave the sand than to irrigate and fertilize and mow the same area, so the only question is how much you are paying to shape all those bunkers.  It can certainly be quite expensive to get a contractor to rebuild them on an existing course and try to follow old photos of what they looked like with any measure of accuracy ... the cost might be $5000 or $7500 per bunker in that case.  But to create them to begin with is mostly shaping work, and the entire shaping budget for a course might be $300,000, of which maybe a third (and no more than half) would be assigned to bunker creation ... so are bunkers worth an extra $100,000 out of a $2 million or $5 million construction budget?

Tom

It all depends on the maintenance budget doesn't it?  I can tell you that for modest clubs in the UK, bunkers do eat a considerable chunk of the budget.  Sure, for the fat clubs with loads of visitor cash it doesn't much matter so it isn't a surprise that these well known courses tend to be the ones with large numbers of bunkers.  In any case, its more than just the money that concerns me about bunkers.  Its the repetitive nature of the penalty for a miscue.  Surely for a sport that professes to be contended on natural playing fields a wider variety of penalties can be devised other than slapping 100 bunkers on a course.  When I looked at the Pete Dye thread about French Lick I shuddered.  All that dreadful sand on such a hilly site.  What a mess and one I never want to see in person. 

In any case, if we are going to talk about GREAT bunker position using very few bunkers, Lederach is the the place to see.  Hands down the best bunkering for a modern course I have seen.  In fact, I can't think of many old courses which can match it.

Ciao

[Ryan Farrow]

Sean, I know you are constantly rooting against overbunkering, which I can agree with in principle. But my theory is this: A ton of bunkers keep things really interesting from tee to green. Check out the top 10-20 courses in the world, it would be enlightening to see how many bunkers these courses average. Oakmont, Pine Valley, Seminole, Cypress, NGLA, The Old Course etc.... But we all know that a hole can be just as interesting with one well place bunker and an angled green, but I have yet to see a course which follows that model and has been recognized with the likes of those courses I have listed above. Perhaps nobody thinks it can be done? Although I am sure you do. Or maybe I just overlooked a world class course with very few bunkers, and my theory is wrong. I am blanking out right now trying to think of one...

[Niall C]

I played Troon Portland earlier in week where MacKenzie did a remodelling job in the early 1920's. No frilly bunkers in sight but instead traditional links type bunkers at beautifully, and what I would call modestly contoured greens. Even on short par 3's he used contouring rather than loads of bunkers and I would estimate that he averaged 2 bunkers per green. There is little by way of fairway bunkering or indeed features on quite a lot of the holes and I would guess he either didn't have the remit or budget to do more. Overall the bunkering is modest in terms of size/number of bunkers but where there are bunkers ie beside the greens, it is definitely the most interesting part of the course so I could agree with both Sean and Ryan. You don't need zillions of bunkers to create interest but difficult to do it with none especially over a whole course.

This perhaps begs the question, which MacKenzie course has the least bunkering ?

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Maybe?

I totally enjoy hazards when I play. If I play a course often, I try different approaches. I actually look for the hazard that are challenging, generally the shortest distance to the pin.  I love the older courses with walls, stonewalls, I like bunkers to have a similar profile of a sheer face, not s smooth saucer shape. If errors are made in the golfer’s strategic game, it should be penalised, forcing a retreat to re take the hazard or to circumvent it altogether.

I dislike fairway bunkers that allow a ball to bounce out due to their shallow saucer shape. IMHO, these types of hazards are just a token trap for the golfer and are a total waste of money. No pleasure in defeating a weak obstacle as in truth it is not an obstacle at all.

As previously mentioned I believe fairway bunkers should be deep. They are there to catch the overconfident golfer, to persuade him to go ‘All In’ or play the waiting game, which should be within his ability. However, once committed to go ‘All In’ the penalty should reflect the magnitude of the challenge.

I get my enjoyment and satisfaction from overcoming challenges, which in themselves are real, not token.

The name of the game is golf, it is a challenge or at least it is meant to be. Hazards should be what their name implies and create obstacles. Yet I am not keen on island Greens, in my opinion they are too penal and are only playable by the top range of golfers. Courses with island tees actually put me off, as I believe the golfer has the right to retreat before a taken recovery shot, however, there will always be the exception. Nevertheless, please give me stonewalls and deep bunkers with a steep front face, as it is sometime good to see the mighty humbled.

I am a believer in Robert ‘The Bruce’ and that great little spider.

Melvyn   

[Phil McDade]

"I blame the economy.  They only get built when people have a lot of money to build them.  I don't think you will see a frilly edged bunker built in the next 20 years."


...here we go again. The misconception that the "frilly edged" bunkers cost more. If so then by how much? Theyre certainly not more to maintain. Those bunkers above from Milwaukee are awful. Those are the result of mismanaged maintenance over the years with edgers and weed whackers.
Its obvious they had a ton more movement and noses at one point. To keep any kind of bunker with sharp lips like those consists of a TON of man hours equating to a TON of MONEY.

The design should dictate maintenance, maintenance shouldnt dictate design.

Ian:

Why the hostility to these bunkers? Milwaukee CC is by all accounts a rather faithfully maintained original Alison, and from what I know of Alison, these bunkers resemble what he's built on other courses. Besides, Milwaukee CC is the most prestiguous course in Wisconsin -- if the membership wants to maintain its bunkers in this style, and the club has tried to remain faithful to a design that dates back 75-some years, why shouldn't they?

[Sean_A]

Sean, I know you are constantly rooting against overbunkering, which I can agree with in principle. But my theory is this: A ton of bunkers keep things really interesting from tee to green. Check out the top 10-20 courses in the world, it would be enlightening to see how many bunkers these courses average. Oakmont, Pine Valley, Seminole, Cypress, NGLA, The Old Course etc.... But we all know that a hole can be just as interesting with one well place bunker and an angled green, but I have yet to see a course which follows that model and has been recognized with the likes of those courses I have listed above. Perhaps nobody thinks it can be done? Although I am sure you do. Or maybe I just overlooked a world class course with very few bunkers, and my theory is wrong. I am blanking out right now trying to think of one...

Ryan

There is always the case for exceptions where bunkering is concerned, but do we want those exceptions to drive design theory or do we want to treat these exceptions as exceptional?  Meaning, does every course need to be bunkered like its a championship venue?  My argument is that if architecture relies on multiple bunkering to create its interest for most of the holes then either archies don't have enough imagination and/or golfers don't have enough imagination.  I happen to think that both sides of the party are guilty.  Golfers have come to expect to see a sea of sand and archies are willing to provide loads of sand because its an easy design option to create interest.  However, the main problems with this approach are the recovery aspects being repetitive and a total lack of subtlety - the old road map syndrome.  For the most part, the only time the road map syndrome doesn't apply with bunkering is when they are centreline, but for some reason archies are reluctant to place bunkers in the centre of fairways.  Furthermore, and I know I am in the minority with this opinion, nearly all bunkering is ugly and takes away from the beauty of the natural landscape.   

Hit this link and check out the pix to get an idea of what I am talking about.  The focus of the course is on the land.  The bunkers serve to enhance, not overwhelm the design.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34413.0.html


Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Bunker style gets way too much attention ... bunker positioning, not enough.

Bingo.

[Garland Bayley]

... nearly all bunkering is ugly and takes away from the beauty of the natural landscape.   

Bingo!

[Charlie Goerges]

B3

BINGO!

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I agree with you that courses are generally overbunkered, and would be no less interesting if there were 20-30 fewer bunkers.  I was just saying that the "cost" argument against them is not all that strong; and I can tell you for a fact that it doesn't sit very well with clients who want "the best" at whatever price, as many have demanded over the past 10-15 years.  You are better off making the argument on esthetic grounds, as you did.

Wish I could remember the Tom Simpson quote I used in The Anatomy of a Golf Course -- something about the educated mind appreciating sound workmanship over a proliferation of bunkers -- or in summary, "less is more."

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

I personally reference the Simpson quote you mention all the time. It's one of my favourites: "The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake, rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards."

[Adam Clayman]

Bunker style gets way too much attention ... bunker positioning, not enough.

Bingo.

Bogey,
 In the old days, there'd be yarns justifying the visual, psychological and aesthetic differences that frilly bunkers, as you call them, create in the mind's eye of the golfer.

Bimgo, doesn't quite cut it for discussion purposes other than as a mirror into the soul of gca.

[Sean_A]

Bunker style gets way too much attention ... bunker positioning, not enough.

Bingo.

Bogey,
 In the old days, there'd be yarns justifying the visual, psychological and aesthetic differences that frilly bunkers, as you call them, create in the mind's eye of the golfer.

Bimgo, doesn't quite cut it for discussion purposes other than as a mirror into the soul of gca.

Adam

It doesn't mean the folks were right in the old days.  Bogey and Tom are right, WAY TOO much time on this site is spent talking about bunker styles rather than how the bunker effects play.  Though I spose the old timers would throw out that nonsense about Dr Mac trying to match the wave of his bunkers with the look of the clouds.  I find it hard to believe that folks ever bought into that, but it seems they did.  Californians will fall for anything.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bunkers are just hazards/traps, hence my dislike for the shallow saucer type.

I believe we should be using the word hazards as per the early reporters. Bunkers are sand TRAPS, nothing more and it should also not be forgotten that many courses had the bunkers added later. By later, I mean some 2-4 months after the course opened.

Melvyn

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bunker style gets way too much attention ... bunker positioning, not enough.

Bingo.

Bogey,
 In the old days, there'd be yarns justifying the visual, psychological and aesthetic differences that frilly bunkers, as you call them, create in the mind's eye of the golfer.

Bimgo, doesn't quite cut it for discussion purposes other than as a mirror into the soul of gca.

Adam

It doesn't mean the folks were right in the old days.  Bogey and Tom are right, WAY TOO much time on this site is spent talking about bunker styles rather than how the bunker effects play.  Though I spose the old timers would throw out that nonsense about Dr Mac trying to match the wave of his bunkers with the look of the clouds.  I find it hard to believe that folks ever bought into that, but it seems they did.  Californians will fall for anything.

Ciao

Sean

Adam was decrying intellectual laziness and contrasting it with the "old" board.  As far as the topic goes, Mackenzie would have argued strongly that his design reflected function, but unlike most he defined function on a different plane. "Pleasurable excitement" was the functional aim: design should advance that, and his principles intended to help with that.  This would include the imitation of nature and the use of camouflage principles to take natural advantage of how the human eye and mind process information.

Therefore aesthetics -- and psychology -- fit into his concern with function in that they could then, and do today, affect how a golfer processed the signals.  The product of Mackenzie's work exists in the physical world (obviously) but the real ground he built into was the ground residing between the golfer's two ears.  I cannot emphasize this point enough -- there is a difference between a "signal" and the processing of the signal! Mackenzie focused on the processing.

To criticize Mac's Mandelbrot bunkers as lacking function is akin to criticizing Schrödinger for using Greek letters in his equation: criticism based on surface fact to be sure, but missing the content below the surface entirely.

(This also explains why many frilly bunkers earn their criticism: they ARE dissociated from function.  But we do not blame the dog for his fleas!)

Mark

[Sean_A]

Bunker style gets way too much attention ... bunker positioning, not enough.

Bingo.

Bogey,
 In the old days, there'd be yarns justifying the visual, psychological and aesthetic differences that frilly bunkers, as you call them, create in the mind's eye of the golfer.

Bimgo, doesn't quite cut it for discussion purposes other than as a mirror into the soul of gca.

Adam

It doesn't mean the folks were right in the old days.  Bogey and Tom are right, WAY TOO much time on this site is spent talking about bunker styles rather than how the bunker effects play.  Though I spose the old timers would throw out that nonsense about Dr Mac trying to match the wave of his bunkers with the look of the clouds.  I find it hard to believe that folks ever bought into that, but it seems they did.  Californians will fall for anything.

Ciao

Sean

Adam was decrying intellectual laziness and contrasting it with the "old" board.  As far as the topic goes, Mackenzie would have argued strongly that his design reflected function, but unlike most he defined function on a different plane. "Pleasurable excitement" was the functional aim: design should advance that, and his principles intended to help with that.  This would include the imitation of nature and the use of camouflage principles to take natural advantage of how the human eye and mind process information.

Therefore aesthetics -- and psychology -- fit into his concern with function in that they could then, and do today, affect how a golfer processed the signals.  The product of Mackenzie's work exists in the physical world (obviously) but the real ground he built into was the ground residing between the golfer's two ears.  I cannot emphasize this point enough -- there is a difference between a "signal" and the processing of the signal! Mackenzie focused on the processing.

To criticize Mac's Mandelbrot bunkers as lacking function is akin to criticizing Schrödinger for using Greek letters in his equation: criticism based on surface fact to be sure, but missing the content below the surface entirely.

(This also explains why many frilly bunkers earn their criticism: they ARE dissociated from function.  But we do not blame the dog for his fleas!)

Mark

Mark

You can argue til you are blue in the face about Dr Mac bunkers, but the truth is some are good and some are not so good.  I don't happen to think that many of his rear bunkers for greens did much to golfers between the ears other than offer a road map, but then I don't think they were intended to be anything much more than pretty frilly stuff to tie in with the surrounds.  The problem is that creativity couldn't be maintained.  Its part of an archies job to foresee this sort of thing and realize he may be on an unrealistic track.  Me thinks the brilliance of his bunker work is mainly based on whether or not people like the looks, and make no mistake, Dr Mac was VERY concerned about how they looked, despite all attempts to justify them for other reasons.  Bottom line, Dr Mac sometimes got carried away with his own aesthetic which is not terribly different from the other big guns of era with a few exceptions.

Ciao   

[Cristian]

Sean, I know you are constantly rooting against overbunkering, which I can agree with in principle. But my theory is this: A ton of bunkers keep things really interesting from tee to green. Check out the top 10-20 courses in the world, it would be enlightening to see how many bunkers these courses average. Oakmont, Pine Valley, Seminole, Cypress, NGLA, The Old Course etc.... But we all know that a hole can be just as interesting with one well place bunker and an angled green, but I have yet to see a course which follows that model and has been recognized with the likes of those courses I have listed above. Perhaps nobody thinks it can be done? Although I am sure you do. Or maybe I just overlooked a world class course with very few bunkers, and my theory is wrong. I am blanking out right now trying to think of one...

... Ballybunion....

[David Stamm]

Sean, how many courses of MacKenzie's have you played in California?

[Sean_A]

Sean, how many courses of MacKenzie's have you played in California?

David

I haven't played any courses in California.  However, I don't subscribe to the Muccian theory that one can know nothing about a course until he sees it. 

Dr Mac's period in California marks a significant departure in bunkering style from his other works around the world.  It would be interesting to know just what drove him to this style and I believe often times placement changes. Mark raises the idea of mimicing nature, but the question I would pose is why did he mess with nature so often to only then try and mimic it - especially around the the rear of greens?  We can see the eventual result of the bunkering becoming divorced from its natural surrounds and it probably wasn't avoidable without massive amounts of maintenance.  I have seen other evidence of Dr Mac's frilly style in the UK which were eventually filled in or altered.  Admitedly, his California take on this style has survived much better than in the UK, but the question of maintenance, which speaks directly to the function (despite Mark's high fallutin notion that Dr Mac was above these sorts of mundane considerations) of the bunkers, is still valid and most interesting. 

Ciao

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Mark. Thanx for articulating where I'm incapable.    Those who argue that the frilly look is a fad are being the lazy ones. I'm not arguing that placement isn't paramount but even the best placed bunker with a bland or ubiquitous style is not maximizing it's potential.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Of course, you have to remember that different people built Dr. MacKenzie's courses in different places around the globe, and while they were all taught by the same guy at the start, they each had a bit of their own character.  The Melbourne (Morcom) style is different than the midwest (Maxwell) style and that's different from what Jack Fleming or Robert Hunter built, too.

My sense about the "clouds" thing is that's how the bosses tried to explain the look they were going for to the construction laborers.  Perry Maxwell told the guys at Crystal Downs to look at the clouds.

[David Stamm]

Sean, how many courses of MacKenzie's have you played in California?

David

I haven't played any courses in California.  However, I don't subscribe to the Muccian theory that one can know nothing about a course until he sees it. 

Dr Mac's period in California marks a significant departure in bunkering style from his other works around the world.  It would be interesting to know just what drove him to this style and I believe often times placement changes. Mark raises the idea of mimicing nature, but the question I would pose is why did he mess with nature so often to only then try and mimic it - especially around the the rear of greens?  We can see the eventual result of the bunkering becoming divorced from its natural surrounds and it probably wasn't avoidable without massive amounts of maintenance.  I have seen other evidence of Dr Mac's frilly style in the UK which were eventually filled in or altered.  Admitedly, his California take on this style has survived much better than in the UK, but the question of maintenance, which speaks directly to the function (despite Mark's high fallutin notion that Dr Mac was above these sorts of mundane considerations) of the bunkers, is still valid and most interesting. 

Ciao

Ciao

So what specifically is your issue with his bunkers, Sean? The look?

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Do not forget that at the end of his career, MacKenzie saw the light and eschewed building a large number of bunkers ... Augusta had 22 and The Jockey Club not many more and Bayside less than either of them.  But post-Depression, with the exception of Augusta, it was the over-bunkered courses which attracted people's attention again ... and the small number of bunkers at Bayside weren't enough to save it from destruction.

[Sean_A]

Sean, how many courses of MacKenzie's have you played in California?

David

I haven't played any courses in California.  However, I don't subscribe to the Muccian theory that one can know nothing about a course until he sees it. 

Dr Mac's period in California marks a significant departure in bunkering style from his other works around the world.  It would be interesting to know just what drove him to this style and I believe often times placement changes. Mark raises the idea of mimicing nature, but the question I would pose is why did he mess with nature so often to only then try and mimic it - especially around the the rear of greens?  We can see the eventual result of the bunkering becoming divorced from its natural surrounds and it probably wasn't avoidable without massive amounts of maintenance.  I have seen other evidence of Dr Mac's frilly style in the UK which were eventually filled in or altered.  Admitedly, his California take on this style has survived much better than in the UK, but the question of maintenance, which speaks directly to the function (despite Mark's high fallutin notion that Dr Mac was above these sorts of mundane considerations) of the bunkers, is still valid and most interesting. 

Ciao

Ciao

So what specifically is your issue with his bunkers, Sean? The look?

David

I don't mind the look of Dr Mac bunkers at all.  I rarely get uptight about bunker styles so long as they make sense from maintenance and weather perspectives.  What I don't like is loads of bunkers, especially those which act as road maps or framers and especially on land with good movement and elevation changes. 

Tom

Yes, I know Dr Mac had different guys doing his work at different periods of his career.  However, I get the sense that his California period is really what he ideally wanted to do and perhaps his time in the area made this possible. 

Ciao

[David Stamm]

Sean, how many courses of MacKenzie's have you played in California?

David

I haven't played any courses in California.  However, I don't subscribe to the Muccian theory that one can know nothing about a course until he sees it. 

Dr Mac's period in California marks a significant departure in bunkering style from his other works around the world.  It would be interesting to know just what drove him to this style and I believe often times placement changes. Mark raises the idea of mimicing nature, but the question I would pose is why did he mess with nature so often to only then try and mimic it - especially around the the rear of greens?  We can see the eventual result of the bunkering becoming divorced from its natural surrounds and it probably wasn't avoidable without massive amounts of maintenance.  I have seen other evidence of Dr Mac's frilly style in the UK which were eventually filled in or altered.  Admitedly, his California take on this style has survived much better than in the UK, but the question of maintenance, which speaks directly to the function (despite Mark's high fallutin notion that Dr Mac was above these sorts of mundane considerations) of the bunkers, is still valid and most interesting. 

Ciao

Ciao

So what specifically is your issue with his bunkers, Sean? The look?

David

I don't mind the look of Dr Mac bunkers at all.  I rarely get uptight about bunker styles so long as they make sense from maintenance and weather perspectives.  What I don't like is loads of bunkers, especially those which act as road maps or framers and especially on land with good movement and elevation changes. 

 

So it's your opinion that MacK built too many bunkers? Or are you implying that his bunkers were laregly for framing purposes?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()