A Brief Bunker Pictorial (No Frills)

[Mike Hendren]

I have recently amused myself (and apparently only myself) by lamenting the frilly bunker trend, only to be told that such bunkers are in fact indigenous to Scotland

That said,  I do like the simplicity depicted in the following photographs and ask that those familiar with the course refrain from disclosing its identity for the time being.  

That said, do you like these?











Bogey

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

I assume you want us to focus solely on aesthetics?

I'm surprised that, with your aversion to frilly edges, you like the two bunkers side by side which is, apparently, the only place on the property that love grass(or whatever ornamental grass that is) will propagate and survive.

Joe

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

I don't like the first one at all -- halfway between an un-maintained cart path and a bunker. Too shallow.

The second photo -- they look OK, but hard to tell. I like the somewhat random placement of them.

Third picture -- OK scruffy look, but almost a little bit too un-maintained.

Fourth picture -- I like these much better, assuming they come into play with the green nearby.

Fifth picture -- I like the one in the foreground the best of those shown.

I can guess the state in which the course is located, and maybe a random guess at the course.

[Anthony Gray]

  Bogey

 THe thing that stands out to me is that they do not fit together..no uniformity. If you did not tell us they are from the same course I never would have assumed it.

  Anthony

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

I assume you want us to focus solely on aesthetics?

Don't we always?

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

  Bogey

 THe thing that stands out to me is that they do not fit together..no uniformity. If you did not tell us they are from the same course I never would have assumed it.

  Anthony

Anthony, I totally agree that these are a mis-mash.  Why does there have to be uniformity?

Mike

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

I assume you want us to focus solely on aesthetics?

Don't we always?

Mike

Perhaps sometimes. Always seems a little strong.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

But not too far off the mark, Joe, I don't think.

I think this is one area -- the only area in fact -- where I may have an advantage over most of the rest of the posters here, even if only a theoretical one.

Most of you guys have played so many courses and played so many of the great courses that you've gotten spoiled and vaguely decadent -- sort of like some wealthy French food critic who's eaten all the finest meals at all the finest restaurants in the world, such that eventually the only thing he has left "to say" is that his favourite meal ever was a hot dog from a New York street vendor.

Both extremes seem silly to me, me who's had mostly average food at average places in one average town.

Place the bunkers where they count the most (playing-wise); then dig a hole and fill it with (or expose) sand. A method and an aesthetic that probably accounts for 99% of all the bunkers ever placed on every golf course in the world.  

I don't want to sound like an ass, Joe and Mike - but I really am starting to think that any and all talk about bunkers, no matter how "nuanced" or "well intentioned", is too much talk about bunkers.

Peter      

PS - yes, those bunkers in the pictures look like bunkers, nothing special...or not special....

[Joe Hancock]

But Peter...

Bunkers do matter more than just looking good. They affect golfers, both good and bad. They affect their game and their senses. Bunkers create a sense of place in a feng shui (sp?) kind of way. They make golf courses more expensive to maintain and build, but ultimately seem to attract more golfers than a course without. (explain that one?)

Bunkers can look good and be functional(from both a strategic and maintenance perspective).

I think Mike and others have more of an issue with the people who only consider a bunker for it's beauty while overlooking its function as a strategic component than they do with the bunkers themselves.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - you're right (and I was overstating my case for 'effect', cause you and Mike were participating on the thread).  But the irony, it seems to me, is that the only people who are considering a bunker only for its beauty are the very same people who you'd expect to be considering/focussing on its functionality. That was the 'point' of my analogy -- it's the undue attention that the food critic pays to food that leads him in the end to focus on the wrong kinds of food.  Most of the golfers I run into on most of the courses I tend to play seem to have a more balanced view of bunkers (their looks and their strategy) -- and not because they think about bunkers all the time but precisely because they don't.

Peter   

[Sean_A]

#1 No, its dreadful.  Take out the bunker aspect and just let there be hard packed sand.

#2 Hmmm, maybe, but the nearby sand for the round bunkers isn't woven in well.  I would prefer these sandy areas to look more like the one jutting in from the trees.  These is sandy land and should be dead easy to get a messy and effective style of bunkering.

#3 For look, this is nearly perfect - just needs to be deeper.

#4 Not bad, but the shape is too tidy - also gotta question why there are two bunkers rather than one.

#5 Its ok, but again not deep enough. I hate the longer grass collar.  From this angle, I really like the look of the bunker right and forward.  It tucks in wonderfully. 

Pietro is right, way too much time is spent on the looks of bunkers.  That said, on this sort of sandy terrain the look should be dead easy to get right without getting all frilly.  The look should be messy and difficult to ascertain where the hazard starts and ends.

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Sean et al, excellent comments to which I offer the following elaborations (not rebuttal)

#1 No, its dreadful.  Take out the bunker aspect and just let there be hard packed sand.  It's not pretty, but would your opinion change if this bunker is 235 yards out on a par five - perhaps making the difference in a player's opportunity to reach in two?  Also it is very well located being blind from the tee and gobbling up drives that don't turn left down the angled fairway - the tee is at the top of the hill in the distance and from there the blind fairway is oriented from 5 to 11 o-clock.  This bunker is easily the best positioned of the five shown.

#2 Hmmm, maybe, but the nearby sand for the round bunkers isn't woven in well.  I would prefer these sandy areas to look more like the one jutting in from the trees.  These is sandy land and should be dead easy to get a messy and effective style of bunkering. Agreed, but I just like the anachronistic string of top shot bunkers

#3 For look, this is nearly perfect - just needs to be deeper.  I would categorize this course as primarily "recreational."  In my experience any sand is a 3/4 penalty for all but the low handicapper from 200 yards out.

#4 Not bad, but the shape is too tidy - also gotta question why there are two bunkers rather than one.  Agreed, but the shapes work well with a rounded green.  The eyebrows are a little much, but necessary to hold the pine staw and leaves out of the bunkers - a maintenance must when charging $22 to play.

#5 Its ok, but again not deep enough. I hate the longer grass collar.  From this angle, I really like the look of the bunker right and forward.  It tucks in wonderfully.  I should have left my bag nearby for context.  This bunker is no more than five feet wide and as a resulting surprisingly deep.  Again, maintenance savings drive the longer grass collar.  Also, this bunker is not well located - dead center of the fairway would be much better.  

Pietro is right, way too much time is spent on the looks of bunkers.  That said, on this sort of sandy terrain the look should be dead easy to get right without getting all frilly.  The look should be messy and difficult to ascertain where the hazard starts and ends.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

1)  I like the shape of this bunker and its jagged edges...it just needs to be deeper so its actually penal in nature.  Looks like one can easily extract themselves from it.

2)  Are those really "bunkers" or just unmaintained areas where the grass has died and what looks to be native sand now exposed?

3)  I like as well, but ditto on the depth...looks too shallow.

4)  I like these two the best.  They appear to be small enough to have some interesting lies and I like thier fury eye-brows.  They work pretty well IMO

5)  Not a fan of this one at all, looks very out of place.

[Mike Hendren]

Kalen, good thoughts. 

Do you routinely hit greens from shallow fairway bunkers?  Please weigh in on a thread I started on that question.

Thanks.

Mike

[henrye]

I like'em.  To me, these are minimalist.  Simple, cheap and no designer fingers or kidney shapes.  The ones that artist designers promote as minimalist often look like works of art with fescue grasses maintained by a hairstylist.  These look simple to maintain and if a little soil washes in with the sand during a rainfall, that's OK too.  I think they suit the parkland terrain.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, good thoughts. 

Do you routinely hit greens from shallow fairway bunkers?  Please weigh in on a thread I started on that question.

Thanks.

Mike

Michael,

Anyone whose played with me knows I'm a switch hitter.....sometimes I hit it, and sometimes I don't!!! 

But I will say this.  I've hit many great shots from flat "waste bunker" type hazards and I've hit many poor ones.  The same can also be said of shots I've hit from the fairway.     However from deeper fairway bunkers with lips and awkward stances, etc...I've hit very very few good shots.  In my 14 years of playing I'd probably say less than 10.

P.S.  Are those bunkers in that 2nd pic by design or as I speculated?

[Mike Hendren]

Kalen, I hear you, brother.

The top-shot string in the second photo are by design.

Mike

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, I hear you, brother.

The top-shot string in the second photo are by design.

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification.  Safe to say its not a design I would have employed! 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Michael,
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

[Sean_A]

Sean et al, excellent comments to which I offer the following elaborations (not rebuttal)

#1 No, its dreadful.  Take out the bunker aspect and just let there be hard packed sand.  It's not pretty, but would your opinion change if this bunker is 235 yards out on a par five - perhaps making the difference in a player's opportunity to reach in two?  Also it is very well located being blind from the tee and gobbling up drives that don't turn left down the angled fairway - the tee is at the top of the hill in the distance and from there the blind fairway is oriented from 5 to 11 o-clock.  This bunker is easily the best positioned of the five shown.

#2 Hmmm, maybe, but the nearby sand for the round bunkers isn't woven in well.  I would prefer these sandy areas to look more like the one jutting in from the trees.  These is sandy land and should be dead easy to get a messy and effective style of bunkering. Agreed, but I just like the anachronistic string of top shot bunkers

#3 For look, this is nearly perfect - just needs to be deeper.  I would categorize this course as primarily "recreational."  In my experience any sand is a 3/4 penalty for all but the low handicapper from 200 yards out.

#4 Not bad, but the shape is too tidy - also gotta question why there are two bunkers rather than one.  Agreed, but the shapes work well with a rounded green.  The eyebrows are a little much, but necessary to hold the pine staw and leaves out of the bunkers - a maintenance must when charging $22 to play.

#5 Its ok, but again not deep enough. I hate the longer grass collar.  From this angle, I really like the look of the bunker right and forward.  It tucks in wonderfully.  I should have left my bag nearby for context.  This bunker is no more than five feet wide and as a resulting surprisingly deep.  Again, maintenance savings drive the longer grass collar.  Also, this bunker is not well located - dead center of the fairway would be much better.  

Pietro is right, way too much time is spent on the looks of bunkers.  That said, on this sort of sandy terrain the look should be dead easy to get right without getting all frilly.  The look should be messy and difficult to ascertain where the hazard starts and ends.

Ciao

Bogey

#1 If you are gonna make a bunker, make a bunker.  This flat stuff isn't kosher.

#4 I like the crap around bunkers.

I can't answer any questions or make comments about the placement other than the aspect of the bunkers fitting in.  Besides, for $22 there isn't much point in getting all worked up over bunkers unless its an easy and cheap fix.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

If commentary is needed I'd add:

#1- Looks like one of those very firm, shallow scars found more frequently in the south. I enjoy the shot from them and gauging the distance/direction the ball will go.

#2- Strewn about is fun.

#3- Perfect height for the lip on such a small bunker, and it doesn't need to be any deeper. If it was it wouldn't encourage bold play down the fairway

#4-I have to ask why? The chip shot from the pine straw would be more troublesome than the bunker shot.

#5- Once again, I think it's a perfect depth for it's size and distance from the green. Just enough lip to embolden the player, just enough lip to embarrass him.

[Phil McDade]

#4-I have to ask why? The chip shot from the pine straw would be more troublesome than the bunker shot.

Completely disagree. Presuming these are greenside bunkers, being in one of them looks like no picnic. They look slightly slanted, so you're unlikely to get a lie level with the green; in fact, it looks like you could be hitting a sand shot from above the green surface, which I think is a really hard shot. And you could be left with a lie up against the frilly-edged stuff, making the back swing difficult and perhaps forcing the player to shoot at the green but away from the flag.

I've always found pine-straw shots pretty easy, as a lousy golfer.

[jeffwarne]

  Bogey

 THe thing that stands out to me is that they do not fit together..no uniformity. If you did not tell us they are from the same course I never would have assumed it.

  Anthony

no uniformity is a good thing

simplicity in design and maintenance
there is WAAAAAAy too much emphasis on aesthetics of bunkers on this site

Dixie Cup participants will enjoy this course-the world need more like this and less modern monsters

[Adam Clayman]

One facet C&C have done is to mix their presentation (aesthetics) depending on the bunkers placement. Ones that lie within the fairways are similar to the ones in the second photo (more circular), while those on the perimeter marry into the native surrounds. This is an acceptable balance, imo. The bunker with the love grass seems awfully...placed.

[Mark Pritchett]

Count me in as a fan of all of these!  What a treat to see these pics.