[Jeff_Mingay]

Perhaps the flame-thrower is the modern scythe 

[Adam Clayman]

There's no doubt an area burned comes back more lush than before. If lush is the desire, which I'm not so sure it is, give it a try.  Wild Horse in Nebraska burns their "wooga" and its often impossible to find ones ball. Added search time is not desireable. Clumpiness is an aspect that promotes the rub o green variable, whose randomness is acceptable. To a sportsman, anyway.   

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

With the money and man-hours Merion possesses I'd say the best device would be a small acetelyn torch that could very nicely recreate those old scythed frilly edges.

This reminds me of the great Julia Childs who was showing the television world how to concoct what she labeled "Creme Brulee in the Bush." For her final piece-de-resistance she reached under her kitchen cabinet and grabbed a acetelyn torch while claiming that any serious cook who might attempt to prepare in the wilderness "Creme Brulee in the Bush" absolutely must have. She then turned the nozzle full bore and lit it and shot it at the "Creme Brulee in the Bush." The acetelyne torch seemed to have a serious kick to it; she sort of fumbled it and appeared to lose control of it damn nearly setting her dress and her kitchen on fire!

[Norbert P]

 Tom Paul, it's good to read your anecdotes. I have missed 'em, immensely.

  I get the feeling I could throw darts at an old National Geographic index, post the result, then to have you regale us with a story.
   If you ever write an autobiography, please consider at least one copy as SOLD!.

  Modification : Make that 2 copies as Tom MacW would love to read one. Though he may be forced to read it in the Alex Lebarge fashion.

  













      

[Ted Cahill]

Jeff:

Using non-bunker land forms -- work much more than anything else. Bunkers for the better player merely provide a safe backstop and predictable spin control when getting out of them. I look at what DeVries did with the 1st Kingsley. No need to bunkers by the green - the target is long and narrow with fall-offs on both sides. Makes the better player really think hard before going for the green in two blows. Put a bunker to either side and that would only make the hole easier for them.

Another good example is the mound that Team Doak included in front of the par-5 3rd at CommonGround. If they placed a bunker it would make the hole even easier -- the land form is well done for what it provides.

This site is usually more about pic appeal than about true functionality. Create bunkers that impose even more demands and the weaker player will suffer even more so.

When bunkers add all of the make-up with high grasses and the like - they only add to even more time consumed on the course and the likely insertion of unplayable lies to keep the game moving.

I like the concept of closely mown areas being used more frequently. The slow play fear you mentioned doesn't happen with the balls rolling away with the land form concept as it does with bunkers from my experience.

#15 at Pacific Dunes is another great example of a mound near the green creating more of a challenge than a bunker.  Often when I have played this hole, I eyeball that mound with a wedge in my hand and inevitably leak my wedge into the mound that spits my shot away.  The tight lie I am left with is all kinds of fun to try and hold that green.  A bunker shot would be much easier and a lot less interesting...

[RJ_Daley]

I'll have to look in Doak's Dr. Mac book and others to see if there are many photos of bunkers at the Australian courses from pre WWII era.  I wonder if there are good photo records of the bunker style maintenance and presentation of those bunkers of MacKenzie's that might illustrate any evolution of the bunkers into the distinctive sharp razor edged look of today. 

Any one have observations on this possible Australian style evolution or was it always as we see them now?   I doubt they could have had this razor edge in their original iterations.

[Adam Clayman]

   Ensuing futility

-- but today's equipment for the better player makes bunkers really more of a "frill" than a strategic consequence.

Matt, This blanket statement is probably more true on a less than thoughtfully designed hole.  But, there are plenty of examples where better players are put into a go no-go decision, and/or are smart to favor away from a well placed bunker. Add a firm canvas and your statement holds even less weight. How else did Tiger master those Links courses a few years back? By avoiding the bunkers, that's how. To imply they are not relevant to the better player, or that he doesn't consider them, as a generalized trend because they are oh soooo gooood, just doesn't support what I have seen.

I totally agree with you about undulating landforms best use, is sans bunker. White Bear Yacht Club being the poster child for this recent trend of removing many green side bunkers, and letting their ground's movement do the talking, with shorter grass. Wait a minute...Is a trend? Or, just a playbook gimmick. coming out of the minds of these favored architects, you keep harping on, from this site?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Without real depth most bunkers for the better player are merely a plus because they can likely get a fairly straightforward lie and can put spin on the ball as needed.

The average to high handicap players are the ones who fear bunkers because of their overall inconsistency. Frankly, the majority of the conversation on GCA regarding bunkers deals with overall appearances and rarely discusses the playability element.

The comment you made about a firm canvas has little meaning when players who are strong can hit driver the distances they get and have nothing more than a flip shot to many holes. Unless the wind is howling my statement I made previously stands.

Most American courses do not have bunkers of the type you outlined in your post. In regards to Tiger's win the issue with less of the bunkers and more of the control off the tee.

The real future lies in less bunkers -- save those that are truly penal in nature -- Engh does a number of them as do a few others. Ground forms need to be the real trend because they provide more serious challenges for the better player without overwhelming the higher handicap players.

[Norbert P]

. . .  Frankly, the majority of the conversation on GCA regarding bunkers deals with overall appearances and rarely discusses the playability element.

   You are probably right on this statement. I put cause at the tastes in the majority of golfers who don't generally think about what the designer/shaper considers about options of recovery from a bunker.      It's easy to speak of what we like, but not always easy to take the subject to the next level of understanding why a bunker is built the way it is.   

   Choosing a frilled (or any style) style does not negate construction principles of drainage, lies, slopes, shot options, etc.

 

The following is a link to some rugged "looking" bunkers that probably are rugged to play from as well.

   http://golfpicoftheweek.blogspot.com/2009/12/wild-rugged-bunkers.html

[Sean_A]

So tell me, anybody, why exactly are we worrying about what the top players do with bunkers?  Indeed, why are so many discussions about architectural features couched in terms of the best players?  This is a PoV I just can't understand.  WE all know that top dogs chew up golf courses unless they are f&f and with horrible rough.  All the other stuff like water and sand is just cream.  Can we please just talk about features as they apply to US and 98% of other golfers out there?  That said, I have long believed that the way forward with bunkers is less of them, but more penal in terms of escape and better placed to induce choice making.  Archies need to find more and better ways to bring the terrain (even if heavily altered) into play.  This is something most generally fail to do in a profound way and part of the consequence of this is the continuing obsession with making bunkers pretty and perfectly manicured.  IMO, this is why most frilly bunkers exist.

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Slag. I find stereotypical statements that pigeonhole "this site" are always wrong. There's no consensus on any subject.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

We do agree -- you want less bunkers -- so do I.

You want those that are used to be more penal -- so do I.

My point -- since you clearly missed it -- is that bunkers on the whole, as built for the most part in the USA, do little to extract fear or thinking because they are prepared in such a way for e-z escape by the better players given today's top shelf equipment and their solid technique in doing so. The 98% of the players you always champion need to avoid just about any bunker because their technique is flawed and as a result the penalty extracted from such players is in direct opposite manner to that faced by the better player. That was my point -- too bad you missed it. Adding ground forms of one type or the other allows that gap to be properly balanced for both groups.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()