Is this a radical bunker idea?

[Michael Goldstein]

Scott, you took the words out of my mouth - what is the proper amount of bunkers?

Mike, my home track in New Zealand has more bunkers than Huntercombe... but only just. It might have 20 now, thanks to a meddling influence, but it's still pretty special.   

[Niall C]

Mike,

I agree with the others, absolutely no need for sand however you do raise a very interesting point re contrasting colours. I think it was MacKenzie, or perhaps Simpson who wrote about the beauty of differing kinds of grass/moss in afairway as it provided contrasting colours. I've never played Huntercombe but I would bet that in the summer in particular with the turf drying out that there wouldbe lots of contrasting colours in the ground.

Niall   

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Sean got there first but that hollow is the greenside hollow short right of the short par 4 4th.  You're right, though, Mike's change would be one for the worse.  A crime, in fact.  It would make recovery easier, rather than harder, too.

Two of my most enjoyable rounds of the year have been at Kington and Berkhamsted, with not a single sand bunker between them.

Mark

I thought it was the par 5 16th.   There's a hollow there too, maybe not as wild.   

[David Harshbarger]

It's like asking what the right number of strokes are for a painting.  It's the number needed.  Certainly, the number depends on the effect intended.  For example, Emmet's 15th at Mohawk is made by the 11 pearl necklace bunkers.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48712.msg1102386.html#msg1102386

Completely artificial, but really cool.

Unless a course has remarkable landforms that create interesting hazards, I can't see how a course without sand bunkers would be seen as more than a dog track.  That said, the 11 bunkers at 15 Mohawk could suffice for an entire course if they are the right bunkers.

Going back to the painting analogy, you could say the right number of strokes is the number where adding even 1 would leave a lesser work.  That sense of over-bunkering comes when that point has long been passed.

[Tim Nugent]

Sean, did Huntercombe ever have sand in those 50-some man-made hollows? I ask because ftom the aerial it looks like a typical depression era cost contaiment  "de-bunkerization" effort where they left only what could be sold as the bear minimum.  Also. was the routing ever different?  If that short 4 is indeed #4, then that means you start on the par 3?  Did they ever start on the par 5?,- what looks to be the 6th?

[Ken Fry]

Unless a course has remarkable landforms that create interesting hazards, I can't see how a course without sand bunkers would be seen as more than a dog track. 

I've been thinking of this issue as the discussion has unfolded and I''m going to disagree with you.

There are a number of examples where architects have used minor earth moving to create elevation change or the illusion of elevation change.  One example is how Pete Dye dug out the front of a few green complexes at Crooked Stick to give the illusion the shot from the fairway was uphill.  Granted many of these areas turned into sand traps, but a few are maintained as grass bunkers as my memory goes.

Building up has the tendency to look very artificial on a flat site with no natural features to tie into, but can building down look natural and provide the challenge absent of bunkering?

Ken

[Scott Warren]

Tim,

I believe the course originally began at the far end of the course, at what is now the 14th.

[David Harshbarger]

Ken,  

I'll agree with you in part.  A course can definitely have some holes without sand bunkers, and I'd guess that excavation can be the means to create the landforms that would do that.  But, could you get away with that without using sand for an entire course, sans existing landforms for drama?  Maybe?  

It would be interesting to see.  There's a little 9 hole course near me that felt the need to add a bunker.  It being unlikely to make anyone's top 15,000 list, probably not a good example, but even they felt sand less was a detriment.

Dave

[Tim Nugent]

Ken, unless I'm mistaken,I don't think you've gone far enough to be radical.  All you seem to be proposing is manmade grass bunkers ala Huntercombe.  I think you would have to go completely away from any bunkers (grass or sand) and work off the premise of a widely undulating terrain with perhaps lesser degrees in the fairway areas but these would still be rather wrinkled.  Think of an entire golf course like a giant Lost Dunes green.

Scott, I guess that explains the location of the practice area, if it was even around back then.

[Ken Fry]

Ken, unless I'm mistaken,I don't think you've gone far enough to be radical.  All you seem to be proposing is manmade grass bunkers ala Huntercombe.  I think you would have to go completely away from any bunkers (grass or sand) and work off the premise of a widely undulating terrain with perhaps lesser degrees in the fairway areas but these would still be rather wrinkled.  Think of an entire golf course like a giant Lost Dunes green.

Tim,

Great point.  In my mind I'm seeing use of both but primarily the landforms you're describing.  I've done a poor job of explaining that.

While I wouldn't want to see 18 holes with nothing but raised greens and run off areas, the use of whatever landforms the existing terrain could provide would be used.  The 12th hole at Kingsley Club comes to mind as a wonderful example with no bunkers.  The 6th green complex at Lost Dunes (either before or after the short grass was added to the right side) or the 8th green complex at The Dunes Club offer two very different but successful green complexes with no bunkering.  A somewhat obscure hole I've always admired is the 3rd hole at DeVries Mines course in Grand Rapids.  No bunkers on the hole and the green makes use of a natural ridge where the left side runs away and down on the left.  Great visual deception and also a challenging recovery if the ball misses on the left side.

Sincerely,
Ken Dye's Long Lost Son

[Tim Nugent]

Ken, Freudian slip, A contractor once told me that Ken Dye (no relation to Pete) had such intriate grading plans that his fairways had the level of detail that most reserved for green complexes, and expected them to be followed to the letter.  So, now you know.
Cheers!

[Ken Fry]

Ken, Freudian slip, A contractor once told me that Ken Dye (no relation to Pete) had such intriate grading plans that his fairways had the level of detail that most reserved for green complexes, and expected them to be followed to the letter.  So, now you know.
Cheers!

Your earlier post reminded me of our day together at Lost Dunes in the inaugural Midwest Mashie.  Great fun.

Ken

[Sean_A]

Sean, did Huntercombe ever have sand in those 50-some man-made hollows? I ask because ftom the aerial it looks like a typical depression era cost contaiment  "de-bunkerization" effort where they left only what could be sold as the bear minimum.  Also. was the routing ever different?  If that short 4 is indeed #4, then that means you start on the par 3?  Did they ever start on the par 5?,- what looks to be the 6th?

Tim

I think perhaps a few of the hollows had sand at one point.  The one always raised is the pit shy of the 8th green.  That would make this very difficult hole even more so.  That said, the bunker scheme is very different than the original.  There were more bunkers and some were very provocatively placed.  I would very much be in favour of a restoration.

The course used to start on the current 14th when the house was across the main road.  I have used the par 5 6th to start before.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32228.0.html

Ciao   

[Mike McGuire]

A course that's of interest in this discussion is Cuscowilla, C&C's course east of Atlanta.  That course is built on good old Georgia red clay, and the sand in the bunkers has a red coloration.  Because it's on and made of clay, I guess the designers didn't worry too much about draining the bunkers.   There are usually a handful of washouts but somehow it really works.

Alrthough there are a few bunkers on the course, the early gem Huntercombe's greens and approaches are very well protected by humps, hollows, bumps, berms and contours.   It's a real workshop.

Here's Ran's recent profile:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/huntercombe-golf-club/

See any need for a bunker here?  


Yes -  I see a need for a bunker here. Grassing over an obvious bunker is not brillance - it's just graffiti.

As far as how many bunkers is proper - I'll make up a formula if you insist.

Five holes have 2 green side and 2 fairway bunkers = 20
Four holes have 2 green side bunkers = 8
Five holes have 1 green side and 1 fairway bunker = 10
Three hole have 3 green side and 3 fairway bunkers = 18
One hole has no bunkers = 0

Total = 56 bunkers or 3.11 per hole - There you have it

[Mark Pearce]

I'm astonished how people feel able to comment that Huntercombe would be improved by putting sand in that particular bunker.  I can't imagine anyone that has played it would agree.  Playing somewhere like Berkhamsted or Kington, with no sand but plenty of (mostly artificial) humps and hollows as hazards, you realise that they add to, rather than detract from the short game options and, indeed, the challenge.  I would go so far as to say that both would be lesser courses for the addition of sand.  Which is not to say that sand, when used well, is not an excellent hazard.  At Muirfield, for instance, there are dozens of bunkers and it is a very great course, because of that bunkering.  Sand is just one of many possible hazards, though, and is absolutely NOT essential for a great golf course.

[Scott Warren]

Mark,

I'd at least respect the opinion if it were coming from someone who had been to Huntercombe, astonishing as such an argument would be.

It amazes me that on a website devoted to discussing, debating and dissecting golf course architecture, some folks are so willing to argue a specific line without having at least visited the course in question.

Huntercombe is wonderful for many reasons, the judicious use of sand among them.

[Sean_A]

To me its not really about if a green or hole would be improved if a hollow had sand or not.  Its much more about a balance of features/hazards throughout the course. Now, archies nearly automatically stick bunkers in.  If they don't improve the hole, then visual contrast will be cited as the reason for sand.  No, its about creativity in using grass features, slopes and contours as being at the very least just as important as sand.  I think before any bunker is placed that archies should justify their need and fully explore if an alternative "hazard" works.  Sure, there are times when tons of bunkers are more necessary or even desirable - if only for the sake of variety - but those should be the exceptions to the rule rather than the rule.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Mark,

I'd at least respect the opinion if it were coming from someone who had been to Huntercombe, astonishing as such an argument would be.

It amazes me that on a website devoted to discussing, debating and dissecting golf course architecture, some folks are so willing to argue a specific line without having at least visited the course in question.

Huntercombe is wonderful for many reasons, the judicious use of sand among them.

Scott

You're in danger of falling into the Mucci line of reasoning which is if you haven't played it then you can't comment. Personally I think you can comment but clearly if you don't know the course in question then you are at a disadvantage. As an example, Mike was shouted down but he did make an interesting comment (interesting to me at any rate) about definition and how sand can help in that regard. As it happens I would guess (haven't played the course so perhaps you will excuse me commenting  ) that if you had sand at the bottom of the grass bunker in the picture then from most angles you wouldn't be able to see it anyway.

Niall

[Ken Fry]

To add another point of discussion, what about using bunkers as directional tools?  A bunker will be placed on the inside of a dogleg to aid the player on the tee to know which way the hole bends.  What other features could be used to accomplish the same goal?

Ken

[Sean_A]

Niall

Yes of course, the Raynor style of bunkering often doesn't have much definition due to sand until one is close.  When I see the Huntercombe hollows I envision flat bottom sand if they were to contain sand.  It is interesting to note when there are bunkers at Huntercombe the depression is different from the hollows just so they can be offer definition.  Thats why I think many of the hollows were intended to have sand. 

Ken

We can use, fairway cut, rough cut, trees and other vegetation, contouring etc to provide direction markers - most of the time it will just be a very natural look anyway.  I don't see much reason for bunkers to act as a road map other than for the sake of variety.  Isn't the very lack of a "road" one of the reasons why centreline and diagonal bunkers are better than wing bunkers?

Ciao   

[Scott Warren]

Niall,

I agree completely that there are many comments and thoughts that can be offered through pictures alone and that Pat's oft-used line (parapharsing) of "I've played the course more times than you, so I'm right" is ridiculous.

However, I also think someone who has not visited Huntercombe -- one of the most unique courses I've seen -- saying that hollow short-right of the 4th green needs sand, in the following quotes from Mike McGuire:

Yes -  I see a need for a bunker here. Grassing over an obvious bunker is not brillance - it's just graffiti.

Perhaps this hollow works fine but I cant see a bunkerless course being better than one with a proper number of them.

is going well beyond what I think can be gleamed from such unique features in a single picture.

As an example of that, one of Mike's posts uses this feature as the basis to present his argument for greenside sand being preferable to greenside rough, but this hollow is 20 metres or more short of the green and more than 30 metres from left-side pin positions and the floor is clearly mown.

Further -- in relation to the top quote above -- could Mike please post the picture or article that shows us that hollow was once filled with sand? It may well have been, but I've not ever seen anything that proves it.

[Mark Pearce]

Scott,

Come on, let's be completely honest.  Mike is just wrong.  But not as wrong as Dave Harshaberger.  Those grassy hollows at Huntercombe and the earthworks at Berkhamsted and Kington are every bit as good as hazards as a sandy bunker.  It's natural to prefer what you are familiar with but neither Kington nor Berkhamsted suffers for the lack of sand.  Even if that hollow at Huntercomber were right by the green (and it's closer than you say) it would be just perfect as it is.  From any distance out you can't see the bottom of it anyway, so it looks exactly the same as if it were a sand bunker, and the vagaries of lies you might get in it are a wonderful part of playing the hole.  I played there with Giles and Cameron a few weeks back and Cameron left himself in that hollow, to a front left pin.  That would have been a straightforward longish bunker shot from sand.  In a crap lie he played the best shot of his round to leave himself a ten footer for par.

I agree that Pat Mucci's "you can't comment if you haven't played it" line is hogwash but to condemn an idea without having encountered it isn't comment, it's behaving like a Luddite.  I'd invite Mike and Dave to think again about how this might work.  It's not as if Huntercombe doesn't have the odd sand bunker, after all.  The interesting thing is that of all the hazards on the course those sand bunkers are probably the least memorable.

[Scott Warren]

Hang on, you, Cameron and Giles played Huntercombe in a threeball? Heathens!

Your final paragraph is exactly my point, maybe I was trying too hard for once not to cause offence -- there's comment and there's seeing something as indescribable as Huntercombe in two dimensions and making a call like those I quoted further up. It's ridiculous.

New Zealand GC has about 50 bunkers and despite being one of the most wonderfully bunkered courses I've played, it could still stand to lose 5 or 10, and it has nowhere near the undulation or excavations of Huntercombe.

[Mark Pearce]

Indeed.  Like all the best rules the two ball only rule is a little bit flexible.  We were also accompanied by Giles' dog, which was having its first encounter with golf.  Fair to say that there's some work to be done there!

[Bill_McBride]

Indeed.  Like all the best rules the two ball only rule is a little bit flexible.  We were also accompanied by Giles' dog, which was having its first encounter with golf.  Fair to say that there's some work to be done there!

Philip, Sean, Drinkin' Joe and I played a four ball match there a couple of years ago.   Needless to say it was suggested we haul ass!