Fake jagged edge bunkers. Why?

[Wade Whitehead]

I defy anyone who hits it into a bunker in any of Bill's photos to emerge calling them "frilly."

WW

[Rick Shefchik]

I'll suggest that these "frilly" bunkers really look good:

And I'll suggest that this looks better:


I seem to be losing my taste for stylized stuff on the golf course. The more I see photos -- and restorations -- of bunker work by Raynor, Tillinghast, Ross, etc., the more I appreciate simplicity.

Hee Kyung Seo lost the playoff for the women's Open because she hit her drive on the second playoff hole into a grass-faced Ross fairway bunker. Nothing fancy about it, but it did the job: Seo had to wedge out, couldn't reach the green in regulation, and fell two shots back when Ryo birdied. The architecture worked beautifully.

[Bill Brightly]

And I'll suggest that this looks better:


I seem to be losing my taste for stylized stuff on the golf course. The more I see photos -- and restorations -- of bunker work by Raynor, Tillinghast, Ross, etc., the more I appreciate simplicity.

Hee Kyung Seo lost the playoff for the women's Open because she hit her drive on the second playoff hole into a grass-faced Ross fairway bunker. Nothing fancy about it, but it did the job: Seo had to wedge out, couldn't reach the green in regulation, and fell two shots back when Ryo birdied. The architecture worked beautifully.
[/quote]

Rick,

I belong to a Banks course and LOVE MacRaynors, so you won't hear me argue against that style! However, for the sake of argument, I'll call your Raynor green complex with this Lester George green complex:

[Kalen Braley]

Bill,

I think you've stated your case very well and it sort of explains why it gets to confusing to me.

I see what Lester did at Ballyhack and to my eye it looks very good.  I certainly prefer it to the oval/smooth shaped bunkers I see on many other courses.  But I know some on here would vehemently disagree with me and say those bunkers just copy the lastest fads.

P.S.  I still vividly remember seeing the bunker on the 18th hole at Pacific Dunes long before I joined GCA.com.  I was driving from WA to CA and only had time (and money) to take a quick peak in at the resort without playing.  When I saw all those bunkers in that wild/ragged state at Pac Dunes, it was like a complete revelation to me!

[Mike_Young]

I am not talking about jagged edge bunkers with bays and capes.
I am referring to a bunker shaped with a grass face much like a raynor bunker and then instead of a clean straight dand line someone paints a jagged line all along the grass face and tries to give it a fake jagged look....none of the bunkers pictured depict the style I am speaking of.

[Randy Thompson]

Mike,
Can you psot a picture, I donīt have it clear either, sorry for my ignorance but I have seen so many i donīt like.

[michael damico]

I say no. Fairway, bunkers I am a bit more lenient, but I still think you should leave the silly stuff to the outside edges, and leave the golf side of it in some type of rough grass where you can find you ball and still have a shot, I think the irregular shapes are fine, but the tall grasses just off the fairway or just off the green need to go away. And that goes out to all you superintendents out there. Bust out the fly mowers!

why must the fly mowers be broke out? Have you ever used a fly mower? I've used one with string strung behind my back in order to flymow "Ross bunker faces" redesigned by a big name architect - not to mention the backside of the new back tees on the long par 5 fourth hole.

I feel that it is our (and I'm using our liberally as I too am an 'associate') jobs as designers to not CREATE situations that make a superintendent's job that much more of a hassle -  both financially and time consuming - but rather utilize features that already are there and enhance them.

When it is the art of bunker shaping/grading/creation, it should both represent a natural appearance that compliments the existing conditions. More of a Jens Jensen (I guess Ian McHarg) approach rather than Lawrence Halprin.

[Ryan Farrow]

Michael,

Try flymowing 210 bunkers, by the time you finish 18, you mine as well go back to #1. I used to despise grass face bunkers, but my taste has evolved a bit, they have their place, but I know they are a pain in the ass to maintain, and dangerous. I said what I did because I don't know how else you can mow the "inside" edges on some of these newer "frilly edged bunkers" places like Erin Hills or Chambers bay.....etc... maybe you can do it with a weed wacker?

When we built the bunkers at Rock creek with Tom's crew, we made sure the edges near the fairway were less intricate, smoother, and easier to mow, ideally able to cut with a fairway unit. In my opinion, that's the way it should be. And the difference of making "natural" frill edged bunkers hassle free or a total pain in the ass which presents un-playable situations out of near misses.

[paul cowley]

Personally my first concern with bunker design is playability. Regardless of the 'style'...grass faced or sand faced...they should be designed so that a ball moves away from a maintained bunker edge at least a foot or so, and does not get caught in the grass/sand margin.

This does not apply to waste type bunkers or bunkers that transition from a maintained edge on the play side to a more natural outside edge (although the maintained edge would conform to the above).

My next concern is ease of maintenance...the design of a bunker edge should be one that the average super/worker can understand without the need to re mark cut lines on a regular basis...if this happens I have done a poor job. When the capes and bays become too small or wavy they become hard to maintain and playability is compromised...and the 'look' can seem affected in the extreme.

I am more confidant in bunker design if I let form follow the described function....regardless of the aesthetics or style we are trying to create.

[BCrosby]

I think Mike Y is talking about 'filigreed' bunker edges. Delicate, intricate ornamental edges that can't possible last more than a season or two without constant maintenance. I don't have pictures, but recent examples are some of the new bunkers at LA North. Very fancy. That sort of edging does not usually end well.

On an even more curmudgeonly note, I've never understood the attention this board gives to the look of bunkers. Isn't a bunker's location and severity a much more pertinent question? Whether its filigreed, straight edged or otherwise? Looking at Sandwich today on TV and remembering my rounds there, aren't the location and severity of its bunkers a more important measure of its architectural merit? Yet those issues get much less attention on this board than bunker aesthetics. After the last couple of decades, have we all been co-opted by the Fazio marketing machine? Must all good bunkers be eye candy first and serve other purposes, if any, second?

Bob



 

[Mike_Young]

Bob,
Just think how much better most American course would be without bunkers.  I just mentioned in the "subtle" thread.  But our over abundance of bunkers is meant for contrast more than strategy and so often missing into a bunker vs. long rough is much more desirable.  But such courses would not sell homes.

[paul cowley]

....if only bunkers could sell homes nowadays! 

[Ryan Farrow]

Hahhahahahaha!  Paul. Classic!

[Anthony Gray]

  I like the more natural jagged look. Its actually the modern look.

  Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

Bob, why can't it be both dangerous AND lovely, whether MacRaynor sharp-edged or Mackenzie cloud-shaped?

My recollection of the bunkers at RSG is they were both.  The stacked sod bunkers collected most errant shots and the colossus at #4 was terrifying. 

[BCrosby]

Bob, why can't it be both dangerous AND lovely, whether MacRaynor sharp-edged or Mackenzie cloud-shaped?

Bill -

Ideally, good bunkers are both.  Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is not that you must choose one or the other. It's rather, first, in weighing the merits of a bunker, its placment and severity are more important that its aesthetic qualities.

Second, this board seems to spend a lot more time discussing the latter and much less time discussing the former. Which means that what is architecturally most important about a bunker often goes without mention. Given the bright and diverse contributors to this site, I think that's a shame.

Bob 

[cary lichtenstein]

I love bunkers of all kinds. The "faked edge bunkers" on a very manicured course look out of place to me and contrived, but in the correct setting, they're great.

[Sean_A]

Bob C is right of course.  So is Mike Y (as in how does an archie make 100 bunkers strategic?).  I am personally not too fussed with how bunkers look, but I usually prefer a more simple look and the rolled over grass face look is my favourite on non-sandy sites because they hide the sand.  I don't see much point in making sand a focal point of parkland courses.   That said, I don't mind a mix of styles so long as its done well. 

Ciao