Random Bunkering

[Ally Mcintosh]

 That said, one of my laments is the objection to bunkers about 30 yards in front of the green.  Its amazing how often a bunker there completes an aesthetic composition, and for so many, still serve as hazards because they use the run up game.  But, they are discouraged often as not coming into play, and causing difficult long bunker recovery shots for the type of player who has the most trouble with them.

Jeff, as Brian said, thanks for that detailed answer... Do you really get a lot of objection for these approach bunkers?... That disappoints me.  Can I just add a function of them that I see as even more important than the 2 you mention - Deception. Bunkers 30 yards short that have their sightlines tied in with the green surface are the ideal deceptive trick (regardless of all our distance aids)... I am a big fan...

[Philippe Binette]

The bunkers on the old course are not random at all

1) they are setup on the upswing of depressions facing the storm northeast winds... anybody who walk the course in early march with a storm approaching figures out the sheep knew what they were doing out there...

2) somebody did built the revetment for those bunkers... and maybe eliminate a few natural scrapes along the way...

I would prefer the word intelligently dispersed rather than random

[Colin Macqueen]

Philippe,
You beat me to it. I agree with your idea of random bunkers not being random as such. They were surely originally a mixture of weather and wind direction and sheltered (or not) positions on the landscape. Do the bunkers that golfers on this website think look natural (random?) lie in these sort of locations and was this a deliberate effort on the part of the golf course architect?

Colin

[Ben Voelker]

 That said, one of my laments is the objection to bunkers about 30 yards in front of the green.  Its amazing how often a bunker there completes an aesthetic composition, and for so many, still serve as hazards because they use the run up game.  But, they are discouraged often as not coming into play, and causing difficult long bunker recovery shots for the type of player who has the most trouble with them.

Jeff, as Brian said, thanks for that detailed answer... Do you really get a lot of objection for these approach bunkers?... That disappoints me.  Can I just add a function of them that I see as even more important than the 2 you mention - Deception. Bunkers 30 yards short that have their sightlines tied in with the green surface are the ideal deceptive trick (regardless of all our distance aids)... I am a big fan...

Jeff and Ally,

I love these kinds of bunkers as well.  I think they are more intimidating than a left or right bunker positioned right next to the green surface. Bunkers that I have had the most trouble with at courses I have played many times are approach bunkers.

With that said, I find the last point in Jeff's response very interesting.  Do these kinds of approach bunkers have more of an impact on the bogey golfer than the scratch?  The scratch golfer may have some issues with the line of sight and the feel for the distance, but will rarely be actually in the bunker, except maybe on a 3 shotter.  The less skilled a golfer is, the more likely he will find this bunker and is left with an exceptionally difficult following shot.

[paul cowley]

Random bunkering...if done right...is one of the hardest things to do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

Conventional wisdom says they do.  Better players rarely miss a green by 30 yards.  In theory, if a bogey player has come up short 30 yards, he is well on the way to a bogey already.  The question is, under what theory of gca should he be put into a bunker, to increase the possibility of double, or given the difficulty of the long sand shot, triple?

In general, those bunkers make most sense short of driveable par 4 or reachable par 5 holes. Either that, or they have to be the super model of bunkers.

Paul,

Can a gca designed bunker really be random?  Even if I throw the coins on the table (plan) I can't help but tweak the locations, such as if one falls in a hole, or thirty yards off the fw.  And once I try to introduce a shred of logic to their placement, they are no longer technically random. 

They are really placed "irregularly to replicate the supposed randomness of nature" but they are not random.  You might call the beautiful locations of bunkers at Cypress Point a good example of random bunkering, but IMHO, they are really carefully located as per artistic princicples, not natural ones.  Which is still better visually than locating them preciscely at 270-290 yards. 

One famous gca told me he located bunkers in similar fashion and really only cared about getting the photographs.  He figured many of his bunkers would be gone or modified in a few years time,  but didn't really seem to care.

[paul cowley]

Jeff...I wish I had your talent to explain my point.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
Yes there is no true random bunkering relative to the golf hole.
If the bunkering was all random at Sand Hills, the holes still conform to the bunkers.

Here is my suggestion to you to better randomize your bunkers:

Take 1/2 of your bunker budget.
Put them the best places you know using all your formulas.
Then take the rest of your bunker budget and have fun with them - some short, some long, some to double up the size you already made.
Whatever - just don't think about them as much - someone will find them.

Thats what the bunkers at Wolf Point look like.
30 are where they are supposed to be - landing zones & greensides.
The other 31 are willy nilly, and yet smart in artistic and maintenance and construction senses.
Some big, some small, 3 holes none, and 2 holes that share 1, one hole has just 1 (totals: 2 bunkers between 6 holes).
And there are 10 bunkers on #14 alone.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I go through nearly exactly those histronics in design. It sounds like your formulas are very similar to mine.......I hate to have 2-3 bunkers per hole. I prefer some with none and one with 10 like you do.  Again, similar formulas.  And, if you have them after just a few course designs, imagine how forumulaic you might be after 50!

I also was brought up in the biz to distinguish a gca from a "player in the dirt" (like a Tour Pro)  Design does mean more than art.  It means applying some logic to maximize the value of every design element.  The upshot is that even without budget concerns, it is possible to question every bunker and why it is placed where it is (in 99% of cases, yes, they are placed, or even at Sand Hills, the holes routed to the placement of natural bunkers)  So, if in reviewing my design, I have used more than a few bunkers that don't provide full measure as hazard, target, looks, etc., I question whether I am a professional architect or just playing in the dirt.

In the end, not many of my clients would buy an explanation of "willy nilly" for the placement of bunkers, but you have been fortunate to start your career with a private owner who didn't ask many questions or put too many limitations on you, i.e., start with a dream project.  Not many can say that!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will add that I have been called back to several of my own and other courses on bunker removal and reduction projects, only solidfying my current opinion that every bunker ought to have a purpose (or many) to justify itself.  This economy is the new normal (and reflects normal in most periods of gca) making "random" and "excessive" bunkering so 1990's in the eyes of most.

I love it, but am not sure we can justify it at this particular time.

[Michael Dugger]

I can't remember who it was that said it but they said something along the lines of no bunker is truly random if you find yourself in it.

Certainly some bunkers play more of a defining role in the strategy of a golf hole, but even that statement is rather weak.

And what I mean by that is take the average PGA tour event.  Often the pros are rooting for their ball to get in a bunker because it's far more easy to extricate themselves from that than it is the rough.

Therefore, if a bunker doesn't impart fear, or impart a true "penalty" then how can it impact the strategy of a hole?

And this is why I think one of the integral elements of a bunker is that it impart fear.  It must be scary looking, and it must impart a true penalty.  

So, I think the aesthetics matter.  And while surely some bunkers will catch more shots than others....very few bunkers are truly worthless because in the end I think they provide a psychological hazard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why do we always use the Gawdam PGA Tour to make examples here?  They and the sub set of courses they use constitute maybe 0.00001% of golf.  Irrelevant, I say.

That said, for the rest of us, it would seem that a bunker that imparts fear could actually dictate strategy TOO much, i.e., play safe.  Strategic bunkers are generally (not always) benign enough that there is the possibility that you won't lose a stroke by challenging them.  Think how you react to OB or water - you play away 99% of the time, at least if you are smart, or unless you are on a closing hole and absolutely need a mircale to win your $2 bet and are willing to risk a $4 golf ball to do it.

[Matthew Sander]

...or unless you are on a closing hole and absolutely need a mircale to win your $2 bet and are willing to risk a $4 golf ball to do it.

That line of thinking is entirely too lucid for this discussion board!

[Mike Nuzzo]

I go through nearly exactly those histronics in design. It sounds like your formulas are very similar to mine......

Jeff
I only had one formula and it had nothing to do with bunkers and it wasn't that important.

Our bunker placement had more to do with me and Don in the field.
My above suggestion was a result of looking at what we did - unaware of how we did it.
Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Don't flatter yourself.  We all have formulas, even if its only to say we don't have formulas.......Even Faz says that.

And just as there can be no random bunkers once you start thinking about them, there has to be a formula once you start thinking about how you approach the design process.......your conversion has already started.

[Tom_Doak]

I've had several writers (including Ron Whitten) misinterpret what I've said to them on the subject of bunkers, and write that I believe in "random bunkering".  I really don't.

I just think that the bunkers should be at different distances off the tees on different holes, so you don't penalize the guy who hits it 240 on every hole, and let off the guy who hits it 210 or 270.

With that philosophy, I look for good places in the terrain to place the bunkers.  So, it might appear random that the 210-yard bunker is on the fifth hole instead of the tenth ... but there is always a reason it's on the fifth.

[paul cowley]

My personal bunker philosophy is to never build a bunker without a purpose...ie...not for effect...and if you have to think twice about whether its needed, don't put it in.....hardly a books worth of knowledge.

[Andrew Summerell]

Surely any bunker that has been intentionally built either off the plans or decided upon in the field is not random.

If you were to lay a large map of a hole out on the ground & throw 5 pebbles onto the map to designate bunker position & then stick ‘religiously’ to that bunker positioning; that would be random. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've seen two references to random bunkering over the past few days.

The first was on a Nebraska National thread from 2009, reply #4:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38363.0/

The second is from Ran's writeup on Banff Springs, caption for the second photo of the 15th hole:

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/canada/banffsprings1/banffsprings000262

Obviously, in these two instances, the idea of random bunkering are quite different, with NN being more of a minimalist/lay-of-the-land issue (Sand Hills, Ballyneal, The Old Course, etc), while at BS they were obviously created.  In the minimalist sense, it would seem that the random bunkering generally gets worked strategically into the routing and thus become less random in the final layout.

Some questions from the less informed (particularly for the unnatural versions)...

• examples of good random bunkering?

NGLA

• examples of bad random bunkering?

Isn't that a contradiction of terms  ?

• can random bunkers be built today due to high maintenance costs to keep them up at a non-natural site?

Yes

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can't remember who it was that said it but they said something along the lines of no bunker is truly random if you find yourself in it.

That's a loose/general interpretation of what Donald Ross stated.

Certainly some bunkers play more of a defining role in the strategy of a golf hole, but even that statement is rather weak.

And what I mean by that is take the average PGA tour event.  Often the pros are rooting for their ball to get in a bunker because it's far more easy to extricate themselves from that than it is the rough.

Therefore, if a bunker doesn't impart fear, or impart a true "penalty" then how can it impact the strategy of a hole?

And this is why I think one of the integral elements of a bunker is that it impart fear.  It must be scary looking, and it must impart a true penalty.  

So, I think the aesthetics matter.  And while surely some bunkers will catch more shots than others....very few bunkers are truly worthless because in the end I think they provide a psychological hazard.

[Peter Pallotta]

The professionals here seem to agree that they should only build bunkers that have a purpose, i.e. no truly random bunkers.  But as a weekend hacker, I don't need 'truly' random bunkers; the 'appearance' of randomness can be enough for me.  Then if I should find myself in one of them, I can blame the vagaries of blind fate instead of my lousy shot-making for that result.  Every once in a while, it's good for the soul to think: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they kill us for their sport".  

Also, call me crazy, but the appearance of randomness is a more appealing/attractive appearance. And, after all, what else do we have but appearances. Live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse, as I like to say....

Peter  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Could someone post the aerial of the 18th hole at NGLA.

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

"Also, call me crazy...."  Okay, you're crazy

And, after all, what else do we have but appearances..... Well, I'm just screwed then.

Live fast.....Well, these 55 years seem to have gone by fast......

die young.....Too late,

leave a pretty corpse.... Well, that can't happen for me.  See Above.

[Ben Voelker]

Peter,

"Also, call me crazy...."  Okay, you're crazy

And, after all, what else do we have but appearances..... Well, I'm just screwed then.

Live fast.....Well, these 55 years seem to have gone by fast......

die young.....Too late,

leave a pretty corpse.... Well, that can't happen for me.  See Above.

As the kids say, LOL!

[Sean_A]

I don't think I know of a worse description for a feature other than "random bunker".  Okay, the USGA definition of a hazard is pretty silly as well.  Do archies really want to be known for actually producing random bunkers?  It seems to me that ANYBODY can do that.  If random is what we want why hire an archie?  As a guy who likes minimal bunkering I don't like the idea of hazrads placed willy nilly.  I say make few of them, but make them fully accountable.

Ciao