Groupings of 3, 4, 5 or 6 or... Bunkers. Won't 1 or 2 do the trick?

[Mark Saltzman]

I recently played a golf course I really enjoyed (please don't name it even if you can identify it from the pictures).  The bunkering, in general, was very well done, though perhaps there were a couple too many for my tastes. 

Though this is far from the first course at which I have noticed this, in many places grouping of 3 or 4 or more bunkers were used.  No doubt this looks intimidating, but is this really necessary?  Are groupings of this many bunkers ever really necessary?  I mean, won't 1 or 2 bunkers generally be enough to get the golfer to attempt to steer clear of the area.  Why have so many bunkers? Is it just to be sure that no bad shot goes unpunished?

A couple of examples:

Bunkers on the left...






Bunkers on the right...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

A Couple of reasons for them -

The varying lengths of tee shots means fw bunkers probably should be extended at least on some holes.  If you place them at only 290 off the back tees, they don't come into play for very many folks, even with multiple tees.  On the Cog Hill thread, I was going to mention that Rees, in his tournament work, seems fond of long bunkers or clusters to make the strategy similar for varying length tee shots.

Once you have decided on a large bunker zone, either for reasons above or for generally large scale of the project, its a lot cheaper to leave some grass areas in between, rather than build a solid sand bunker, especially if liners are used.  Typical SF cost is about $5 SF now.  Leaving half the area grass means its not a budget buster.

Lastly, I like variety in bunker complexes and generally build a cluster set of bunkers, one or two over sized, a few standard single bunkers, etc.  Visual variety is important.

[Jay Cox]

Mark,
Would you have the same objection if there were one larger bunker, covering the entire area of the existing smaller ones?

From a shot values standpoint, those two situations would be roughly equivalent.

Perhaps the larger bunker would be better from a maintenance perspective (fewer small strips of grass to mow between the traps, eliminates the transition time between taking care of one bunker and the next), but it would cost more to build (more sand, more liner, etc.).  And regardless of those differences, a big part of the difference would be visual.  Would you prefer the look of one large bunker to three or more small ones?  

I don't necessarily like the look of clustered bunkers.  They often appear more at odds with the surrounding ground than a lone bunker would.  But I think many architects, and many golfers, would disagree, and I think visuals are the main reason why architects use clustered bunkers.

[Rick Shefchik]

Mark, I think your point is well-taken when the clusters are side-by-side, rather than end-to-end. Pick a spot where the golfer shouldn't hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.

But regarding fairway bunkers, not only would it be cheaper to maintain a series of them rather than one long one, but it is a serious pet peeve of mine to have to rake twenty yards of my own footprints going into and then coming back out of a huge bunker.

[Lloyd_Cole]

"it is a serious pet peeve of mine to have to rake twenty yards of my own footprints going into and then coming back out of a huge bunker"

Seconded.

I have seen clustering overdone, a Smyers course in the Mid West comes to mind. The look can be overly busy. But, I do like the idea of bringing more chance (less predictability) into play. One large bunker - 90% of the shots called for would be similar if not identical. Multiple bunkers - I think you can bring that down to maybe 40%, or less.

[Kyle Henderson]

Mark,

A Couple of reasons for them -

The varying lengths of tee shots means fw bunkers probably should be extended at least on some holes.  If you place them at only 290 off the back tees, they don't come into play for very many folks, even with multiple tees.  On the Cog Hill thread, I was going to mention that Rees, in his tournament work, seems fond of long bunkers or clusters to make the strategy similar for varying length tee shots.

Once you have decided on a large bunker zone, either for reasons above or for generally large scale of the project, its a lot cheaper to leave some grass areas in between, rather than build a solid sand bunker, especially if liners are used.  Typical SF cost is about $5 SF now.  Leaving half the area grass means its not a budget buster.

Lastly, I like variety in bunker complexes and generally build a cluster set of bunkers, one or two over sized, a few standard single bunkers, etc.  Visual variety is important.

A large bunker will play different than a series of small bunkers that comprise the same relative area unless they are quite shallow, since the large bunker offers a lower likelihood of contending with the lip when playing a recovery shot.

[Sean_A]

No, I am not buying the design reasons for the prevelance of cluster bunkers.  Its basically a scam to try and make hazards in play for all golfers.  This sort of design by numbers doesn't do much for me.  When was it written that all hazards should be in play for all golfers?  Nothing wrong with the odd clustering, but hopefully, this fad will pass. 

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

  I like the look of multiple bunkers. It may not effect play but it adds character to the hole.

  Anthony

[Mike Nuzzo]

Sean
Nice response, I'm with you, but I don't think it will pass.

I saw someone describing how good the movie Jaws was in part for its quiet moments with Roy and his sons - and that was what others should try to emulate.
But it seems what other movie makers borrowed from its success was the gore.

I think of Pine Valley and Shinnecock as the movie Jaws, and what other golf course makers took was bunkers sell.

Cheers

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Fully agreed...this hole should be blown'd up! 

[Garland Bayley]

... Pick a spot where the golfer shouldn't hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.
...

Pick a spot where the golfer should hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.

[Garland Bayley]

Simple answer.

If you have money, you build many many unimportant bunkers.

If you don't have money, you build the important bunkers, and let it go at that.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mark,

Fully agreed...this hole should be blown'd up! 

Kalen
If you asked me what is great about Cypress, my first few answers wouldn't be about the bunkers.
Mike

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

No doubt the bunkering certainly can be polarizing at CPC.  They don't bother me...but then again, I'm probably a bunker slut.

P.S.  I really liked the bunkering on 13 in its original carnation when it was more sandy/waste area.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Kalen
I didn't say the bunkering wasn't great, I said there are other things I liked more or equally - routing, hole design, pacific, greens, fairway rolls, dunes

The easiest thing for another architect to copy would be the # of bunkers

[Rick Shefchik]

... Pick a spot where the golfer shouldn't hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.
...

Pick a spot where the golfer should hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.

Then why not cut the hole in the middle of a greenside bunker?

[Garland Bayley]

... Pick a spot where the golfer shouldn't hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.
...

Pick a spot where the golfer should hit his approach to the green and put one bunker there, is what I say.

Then why not cut the hole in the middle of a greenside bunker?

Sorry, that was supposed to say "a spot from where".
I.e., if it is the best spot from which to hit the approach, then a bunker there is automatic risk/reward.

[Howard Riefs]

Or how about 14 bunkers that line the entire left side of the hole -- one in front of the next. Off the tee, up the fairway, greenside.

Rees Jones certainly loves his fairway bunkers.  This is the par 5, #10 at the lackluster Charleston National in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

[Garland Bayley]

Or how about 14 bunkers that line the entire left side of the hole -- one in front of the next. Off the tee, up the fairway, greenside.

Rees Jones certainly loves his fairway bunkers.  This is the par 5, #10 at the lackluster Charleston National in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

Is his beloved brother Bobby a hooker, or perhaps a lefty with a slice?

[Mark Saltzman]

Or how about 14 bunkers that line the entire left side of the hole -- one in front of the next. Off the tee, up the fairway, greenside.

Rees Jones certainly loves his fairway bunkers.  This is the par 5, #10 at the lackluster Charleston National in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

I guess this is sure to penalize anyone who misses left, regardless of length off the tee.  Maybe the worst part, though, is the tree on the right side of the fairway.

[henrye]

I asked the same question a few years ago about "cluster" bunkers and why they were fairly common.  I also stated that I wasn't fond of them.  I think it was Tom Doak that answered why they were used.  He said something to the effect....It's easier to walk through bunkers when they are clustered as opposed to having to walk around when there is one large bunker.

[Rick Shefchik]

That's another good reason.

[Tom_Doak]

I asked the same question a few years ago about "cluster" bunkers and why they were fairly common.  I also stated that I wasn't fond of them.  I think it was Tom Doak that answered why they were used.  He said something to the effect....It's easier to walk through bunkers when they are clustered as opposed to having to walk around when there is one large bunker.

Henry:

That's right.

Also, on windy sites, two or three small bunkers are much less prone to wind erosion than one big one.  Same goes for rainy sites and water erosion.

However, it's equally true that a lot of this phenomenon has occurred just because people think lots of bunkers are more attractive visually.  In the case of my own company, it's also true that having two or three talented guys on site "to shape bunkers" usually results in more bunkers than I expected.  Don Mahaffey and I saw some good examples of that out in Nebraska last month.

For example -- and I wish I had a picture -- on the 13th hole of the new Dismal River course, I had anticipated building one big bunker just short of the green, and no bunkers around the green.  However, in the end, we wound up with five bunkers!  The big one was broken in two because of potential wind erosion; two more were added off the green at the back left to keep balls from running into a thick clump of native grass, and to hide the tee for the next hole from view; and finally a small bunker was added above the two big ones at the front right of the green, to help tie in the grassing line on that side, and to serve as a buffer between the tight turf around the green and the native rough, so the native wouldn't get overwatered.

I was cringing the whole time we built that last bunker over what Sean Arble would say of it.  It certainly isn't "necessary" from a player's point of view, but it's not just there for decoration ... it does prevent the player from getting some very nasty lies on a missed shot to the right of the green.  Plus, Dismal River is a pretty sandy place, so it's not like it cost much to build ... about an hour and a half of shaping time.

[Sean_A]

I asked the same question a few years ago about "cluster" bunkers and why they were fairly common.  I also stated that I wasn't fond of them.  I think it was Tom Doak that answered why they were used.  He said something to the effect....It's easier to walk through bunkers when they are clustered as opposed to having to walk around when there is one large bunker.

Henry:

That's right.

Also, on windy sites, two or three small bunkers are much less prone to wind erosion than one big one.  Same goes for rainy sites and water erosion.

However, it's equally true that a lot of this phenomenon has occurred just because people think lots of bunkers are more attractive visually.  In the case of my own company, it's also true that having two or three talented guys on site "to shape bunkers" usually results in more bunkers than I expected.  Don Mahaffey and I saw some good examples of that out in Nebraska last month.

For example -- and I wish I had a picture -- on the 13th hole of the new Dismal River course, I had anticipated building one big bunker just short of the green, and no bunkers around the green.  However, in the end, we wound up with five bunkers!  The big one was broken in two because of potential wind erosion; two more were added off the green at the back left to keep balls from running into a thick clump of native grass, and to hide the tee for the next hole from view; and finally a small bunker was added above the two big ones at the front right of the green, to help tie in the grassing line on that side, and to serve as a buffer between the tight turf around the green and the native rough, so the native wouldn't get overwatered.

I was cringing the whole time we built that last bunker over what Sean Arble would say of it.  It certainly isn't "necessary" from a player's point of view, but it's not just there for decoration ... it does prevent the player from getting some very nasty lies on a missed shot to the right of the green.  Plus, Dismal River is a pretty sandy place, so it's not like it cost much to build ... about an hour and a half of shaping time.

Tom

You ought to know by now that I view sandy sites differently in terms of bunkering, but I still like to think archies can think outside the box in terms of using bunkers.  If an archie feels the unnecessary (from a playing perspective) three additional bunkers are indeed necessary for other reasons, perhaps the idea of original huge bunker could have been revisited.  Or thinking on a larger scale, maybe this sort of thing should signal the idea of removing some bunkers elsewhere.  Beyond all that, I find it most interesting that a bunker was used to block the view of the following tee.  Is it an ugly tee or perhaps a general goal to create a sense of seclusion through each hole?  I have heard other archies talk about not having the following tee in view from the approach.  To be honest, I am struggling to get my head around why this would be considered important.  But then I like the idea of compact designs in which there are opportunities to mingle with other groups - part of the walk in the park test.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

The tee in question is an extension of the short grass around the green -- it's very close at hand.  But, it made an odd shape as you could just see a sliver of it extending way out to the left in the backdrop to the hole.  This is the sort of thing my associates fret about when they've got nothing better to do, but I do believe it's got something to do with why everyone likes the look of our courses so much.  We are very careful about everything we let the golfer see, and that's not all about bunkers.