The Art Of The Bunker-A Case Study #3

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Okay, moving right along.........The red line will dictate the line of play for those that need it. Here is our first fairway bunker. Lets here some comments on depth, shape, contours. etc.

How does it fair with other modern day fairway bunkers?

Does a severity exists at this bunker for any golfer whom should make a visit?

Touching on placement, does the bunker tie-in a decpetion from the fairway, thus making a fairway shot a little more proposing? Does the bunker look to be properly placed on any vairiation of holes? (Long or short Par 4 or 5)

The background has been removed to protect the innocent, or is it guilty?

[Brian Phillips]

Tommy,

I myself like this bunker more than the other two you have posted so far.  I think the blending into the fairway  and the bank on the right is just about perfect.

The front of the bunker (ie this side of the hole) is good in that if your drive is just slightly wrong the ball will roll in but it looks like there is still a stance and a shot to the green.  However if the drive actually lands in the bunker it looks like you are going have to hack it out with no shot to the green which I also agree with.

The tougue coming down into the bunker looks good.  The depth in the bunker looks perfect to me.  It looks like it is flashed up just enough for it to be visible from the fairway.  

It looks like it could be a Par 5 fairway bunker aimed at catching the second shot on the hole.  One of those that just seem to suck in that 3 or 5 wood you just pushed ever so slightly.  You have taken the chance to get past it but not caught the shot just right and wham..you have gone from a good chance of birdie to probable bogey..

It doesn't look American to me..

To me this bunker is an 8.

Cheers Brian.

[TEPaul]

I agree with Brian that this bunker looks much more natural to me and that the lines on the surrounds (top lines and sand edge lines) blend much better and more naturally with the topogrophy and the basic lines of golf and the site that meld with it to the eye farther along. In other words whoever did this bunker, designed it, sited it, constructed it (and later maintains it) set it in so it looks like it belongs on the site in a far more natural way.

Everything about the right side (the higher side) fits in with the right to left flow of the topography and the basic bunker shape fits well with the topography as the eye moves left on it. The shape of the bunker to the golfer's eye seems more natural because of this and very importantly the way it's maintained with the more rugged edging looks far better and sort of evolutionary to me.

As for the way it probably plays; there seems to be randomness to its shape--in other words if a golfer's ball gets in it his particular lie and recoverability is just whatever it is--nothing particularly formulaic!

But the actual overall shape of the bunker does not really follow this randomness completely--it follows a bit of an architectural priniciple explained by Ross that if the ball is hit wider of its mark the golfer will have to deal with a higher right side (higher lip on the far right) from which it should be less easy to recover because the face of the bunker is progressively higher to the right--and again how perfectly placed this bunker is (for this basic architectural principle) on the natural topography which just happens to have a higher right side (the land flows from right to left). Ross even mentioned (for you formulaicly minded designers) that this is an architectural principle that does not have to be adhered to in each and every case but it is an excellent one nonetheless.

There are a few more interesting aspects to the play of this bunker for the golfer challenging it. The mid section needs a bit more distance to carry (which is good) and the left side needs less distance but has that interesting little mound on the left side surround which must deal the ball just missing the bunker some interesting caroms!

This is a really good bunker; it looks like it plays well and interestingly and it just blends well for golf and a natural golf setting and I think these are some of TommyN's points in presenting these case studies of bunkering.

Just one last thing. I wish that those taking photos of bunkers would take them from the angle of the ideal landing area even if the photo is from a closer distance than the ideal landing area.

[Mike_Cirba]

I have really very little to add to Tom Paul's fine, thorough analysis.  The bunker is superbly constructed, shaped, and integrated naturally with its surrounds.  

As far as placement, it's difficult to make that judgement without knowing more hole specifics, but assuming it's either a par five, or a short, potentially driveable par four, I do like the way the hole narrows between the hillside on the left and the bunker right.  Depending on perspective from the tee or fairway, I can see where it might look as though this bunker is adjacent to the green, instead of far short of it.

I'd give it an 8.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd add that Brian's analysis is spot-on, as well.  

[Jeff_McDowell]

I like this bunker for the same reasons Brian and Tom discussed.

The one aspect of this bunker I enjoy the most is how the bunker sets into a natural looking hillside, and not a mound.

Also, I like the dull color of the sand. If this bunker had white sand, I do not think I would like the high contrast.

[GeoffreyC]

Excellent analysis all.  I agree.  

It appears this bunker guards the better line into the green which is more open on the right. THe fact that the green tilts from left to right also makes an approach from near the bunker a bit easier.

[A_Clay_Man]

I too like the non-cookie cutter non- standardization aspect of the lines (edges). I also like that if the shot I hit is too far right, in the bunker, it is a tough explosion shot. The same is true if I just trickle in but not as bad. If I'm lucky to hit the approx. center of the bunker, recovery looks doable due to the fact I don't have to hit the explosion. (If this bunker is outside of the 100 yd mark)
I also like the apparent placement. It looks like a desired angle to the green so it will serve as a spot to aim for but not actually hit. I rate this bunker an 8.

[Craig Disher]

Tommy, is it intentional that the bunkers keep getting better? Until I read TEPaul's comment on the higher right side, I was impressed with how naturally the bunker appeared to fit with the terrain. As usual, there's much to learn. I also like the way the bunker is maintained. A personal peeve is allowing rough to grow between a fairway bunker and the fairway thus reducing the bunker's impact on running shots. This bunker is very inviting.  As TEPaul mentioned, the small knob above the rake introduces a little links-style randomness. To me, this is an artfully designed bunker. An 8 or 9.

[BillV]

Too bad there's that damned tree sticking out like a pimple near the green.  Yccch.

[TEPaul]

CDisher:

You make a great point about how a bunker's surrounds are maintained and how that maintenance style and practice affects the ball getting in the bunker or not!! It's just a great point and has, as you do imagine, very real strategic and playability ramifications!!

It is my belief too that mostly, if possible, bunkering surrounds should be maintained in such a way so that the ball will get into the bunkering instead of getting hung up on the high grass bunker surrounds! This most definitely has a way of "magnifying" the effectiveness of the function of a bunker strategically and in effect "magnifies" any bunker's particular size!!

There's another factor here that also highlights the  ramifications of good and interesting golf course design and that is whether the topography surrounding the bunker (and the topography of the bunker's surrounds) is of the "collecting" or "repelling" type of topography! I don't have a preference either way but I think a bit of both is probably the best of all. If you want to see the ultimate in "collecting" topography combined with bunkering go play Oakmont!! As for a course with "repelling" topography vis-a-vis bunkering, I can't think of a great example right now.

Although, we would both like to see the grass cut short immediately surrounding bunkering and on bunkerings' surrounds, the issue is very much one of maintenance practices and frankly it ain't a simple issue that way!! A golf club and its maintenance staff has to be very understanding of what they use to maintain very short grass around the bunkering and should not use any type of machinery just to cut maintenance costs! It is very true that equipment rolling around on a bunker's surrounds that's too heavy can seriously damage a bunker and its surrounds and cut down significantly on its life span!!

And again, on the issue of "collecting" and "repelling" topography around a bunker the issue is very interesting design-wise and strategy-wise but the issue is also one that very much involves important and necessary drainage issues!

To go back to the particular photo on this topic, that small mound just on the left side of this particular bunker appears to me to be extremely interesting and a good example of little noticed but very sophisticated design. One can just imagine  the different things a ball would do carom-wise in the space of no more than about a foot or two! This is good stuff!

This whole discussion and subject brings up another broader and more basic golf design and strategy issue--the idea of "margin of/for error"! Varying the "margins for error" around a golf course and its design is great stuff, in my opinion! It's just another good example of "variety" and simply serves to keep the golfer thinking, guessing, concentrating harder and filing away any particular shot and experience! It's another example of the necessary nuance that makes for great golf and courses! Really good nuance that really DOES have an effect on the ball in some interesting way is the ultimate to me!

Of course when the margins for error tend to get thin or razor thin, for instance, between success or failure it tends to bring up the whole problem today of "Fairness"--unfortunately!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I'm with those who think your idea for this thread is great, even if not perfectly executed in the first post.  Keep it up!

Now, here are my comments.....

Placement - Good. The right fairway/left greenside combo gives strategic options.  You can go long left or lay up short right for a longer shot with a frontal opening.  If this is a normally downwind hole, reducing backspin, so much the better as the premium for playing right is increased.  

Depth/Playability - Good, as it appears that the outside of the bunker is deeper than the inside, inflicting "proportional punishment".  The general depth also looks good, if my perspective is right that it is a short iron into the green, whether a short 4 or par 5.  

The  shameless Brauer "soundbite formula"for fairway bunker depth is a maximum 1 foot deep per iron number of shot hit to the green.  It looks like a nine iron, and it's about six foot deep (I think) so it's not too penal.  It looks just deep enough to cause equal amounts of concern and optimism about clearing the lip, especially on the outside, which is my idea of a perfect bunker.

It appears the ball will fall away from the edge, allowing a shot out.  There is an element of luck in where your ball ends up, affecting both the stance and ability to clear the lip, adding to the drama, and making it a real strategic  concern on your tee shot (second if a par 5).

Looks - Not bad.  Seen better, seen worse.  It strikes me that there may be at least one of these bunkers on every course in America, meaning this little guy has perhaps 15,000 relatives in his extended family!  

To my eye, the bunker looks just a bit constricted, and there is room to make it bigger, but there would be a few factors to consider before saying that for sure.  It appears to be pretty open hole, and bigger bunkers usually fit better in open spaces, small ones look better in spaces confined with trees. (I did say usually) The greenside bunker appears to be no real prize visually, but we don't have the whole picture, and it appears the picture may have even been altered by Tommy to further disguise the guilty or innocent, no?

The simple front edge allows good vision into the bunker.  The white sand is attractive, but not overly bright (of course, neither is the author of this post!

Maintenance - The steep slopes will wash often, if in a normal rainy climate.  This is exaggerated by the fact that a long slope above the bunker drains over the top, and down the steep sand slope.  It appears there is room above the bunker to cut a subtle diversion swale, and this should be done, even if God Himself, or other high ranking architects from earlier periods of design, built this bunker.  

A lesser consideration in any remodel would be to soften the slopes, probably by making the bunker larger, or add a fabric below that helps hold sand. If this is not possible, then the super should tell his members he/she needs at least one full time bunker maintenance personell.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer has a great point about natural drainage above this bunker on the right. Jeff mentions a diversion swale in this area! That would certainly help but this photo isn't really clear enough to determine the natural drainage flow above that bunker. It appears to me that it might be possible that the topography above the bunker on the right might be such that it is "ridged" slightly so that water would slough off either around the front of the bunker and also around the back of the bunker instead of left and into the bunker.

If that type of sloughing ridge was natural or constructed it would, in effect, do about the same water diversion job as a diversion swale in that area, would it not Jeff? You have a lot more experience in that area than most of use do--but basically it's just thought and common sense (and of course precompletion testing), right?

[John Foley]

I definetly like this one more than the others. A few thoughts:

-Like the fact that the strategic placement looks like a "If I hit it at it, I'll most likely roll in, so lets try and avoid it".

-Would love to see the fringed look on the front side.

-Definetly don't like the downhill lie, but wouldn't the ball be more of a side hill lie if you ended up in there?

A question though, why is it here vs. more forward or back? Is it there because it fit w/ the slope (It sure appears that way)? The arch could have put the bunker forward of the centerline of the slope, extended it a little right and hidden it somewhat from the line of play.

I'd like to see the one next to the green, that looks even more interesting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I looked again, and I can't tell for sure if the ridge really diverts all the water or not.  It may divert most of it in a gentle storm, but it is so subtle that what we Texans call a "Frog Strangler" or "Turd Floater" would surely come over the top.  I have seen one foot deep diversion swales in Texas and Georgia be totally overrun by big storms.  Thus, I usually opt for less subtlety and more reliability of deeper swales.  Anyway, I was just making a general point to show you all the aspects a semi - professional architect would consider in evaluating or constructing a bunker.

Has nothing particularly to do with the subject, but I do recall suggesting once that tall grass aroundt the bunker lip would slow down drainage.  In actual fact, when grown, tall grass often concentrates water flow into a few spots where the turf is presumably thinner, causing even more problems.

I do recommend field testing of such swales, and use whatever water source is handy.  Sometimes it's handy to be a guy!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I like the way this bunker seems to wrap around and blends with the slope. The irregular elevation of the land - which the the bunker sits upon - is the reason the outline is interesting, as opposed to some conscious effort by the architect to create/contrive an interesting outline - which lends to its more natural appearance. I would imagine the bunker is visually interesting from many different angles. The edging is less clean and sharp, and the turf is not as uniformly green - all adding to the natural appearance. I agree the bunker looks as if it would draw in an errant shot. The section of the bunker closest to the green is not totally visable and is somewhat of a mystery - which add to the visual interest. Due to its differing interior and exterior elevations (reflecting the lay of the land) your fate would be unpredicatable - one could not predict what kind of lie you'd find. It is definitely a bunker that the golfer would attempt to avoid. 7

[RJ_Daley]

Tommy, congratulations on being persistent with this theme.  Now you've got the lads putting on their thinking caps!

What I see is a bunker possibly placed about 20 yards on LOP short and down right of the green that is significantly elevated from the upper side of the bunker as we look at it.  More importantly, I see a severe downslope from the left side narrow fairway opening down right into the leading inside edge of this bunker.  The line of play is treacherous in that if it bounds in from the LOP left, short of the green and is directed at the upper greenside bunker on left, and bounds hard right either just getting past this cop in forground and finding a steep pitch up to green from right side opening, or it gets caught by rolling down into the trap.  The high lip on the left greenside bunker is very important to the placement of this foreground bunker as it demands the boldest and best shot to carry in order to get to pins on back left of green.  And, the green runs away from LOP making the high carry still frought with difficulty to hold near those back left pins.  So, the pins that are considered easier on front and right side of green are causing you to play short and bound onto the green, but defininitely putting the fear in the player with this foreground bunker.  I think the finger or tongue sticking out from the high right side gives a deceptive dimension to the extent of the length towards the green that this bunker presents to the player striking a long iron or fairway wood from well back on the line of play, as depicted.

Jeff, I think I see a nice drainage swale at about 8 o'clock coming out of the bunker on near side, and a bit of an upper diversion about 2-3 yards high top right of the upper lip and draining down right towards the camera to about 4 or 5 o'clock.

Tommy, this looks like a few of the setups at Barona, or it looks something like what I think I have seen on TV of some of the courses in Australia.

ooops, 8.5

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer:

Storms that are "frog stranglers" and "turd floaters"!?! I love it! You guys can turn a phrase down there in Texas! But now I want to know if they're synonymous or if there's a distinction between the two--like one is much worse or more damaging than the other!

Those terms remind me of some of the stuff this Kentucky girlfriend (Claiborne Farm) I used to have would come up with! One time I got kinda drunk and the next morning she told me I was "knee-walkin'" drunk last night. So I asked her how bad that was and she told me not near as bad as "butt-hole" drunk!! I love that stuff so the next night I tried to get "butt-hole" drunk and after that she wouldn't tell me what the next level was!

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I am not sure which storm is stronger.  Texas phrases are more about being colorful than precise.

John F,

I think the entire slope is created by cutting through a hill that blinded the green, not natural.  Check the similar slope on the other side of the fairway.  the bowl effect is usually the result of cutting through a hill.

RJ,

I saw those swales, too, but again think their effectiveness is minimal in a heavy rain.  If Tommy is showing a course in SCAL, they might be okay.

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,

Have you checked your private messages..?  Do you know how to?

Cheers Brian

[Jeff Fortson]

Tommy,

To me this bunker represents all that is bad in a sand hazard.  

Reason - I personally don't think that sand hazards should have sand on more than one of its slopes or edges.  This bunker has what appear to be at least 2 to 3 foot drops in slope of sand from every angle of entrance into the bunker.  Bunkers in my opinion should have relatively flat areas where the sand is and the slopes of the traps should mainly be grass.  I can't tell you how many times I have hit into a Fazio trap and lost a ball due to the extreme slopes with sand all the way to the top and therefore mu ball buries inches into the sand.  I don't think that is the way traps were meant to be.  Traps were meant to be penal but with a little creativity, luck, and bravery you can always attempt to rescue yourself.  This bunker is awful and ugly.   I give it a 2.

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Forston does not appear to like the sand-flash-faced bunker style! That's cool, to each his own; unfortunately for Jeff half the bunkers in the world are sand-flash-faced!

I know what he  means though, no golfer wants to see his ball disappear into the sand flashed face of a bunker. That's definitely more a maintenance issue than a sand-flashed-faced bunker style issue though. The ball is supposed to filter back down the sand face to a more level lie!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I just got in from work, and saw the attention this one was getting and I was just blown away!

My tone is a lot different then it was at 5:30 PCT this morning eh Tom?

Thanks to Jeff Brauer, RJ, Adam and everyone else for the vote of confidence.

It's great to hear both bad and good opinions in thiese threads, because in the end, this isn't supposed to be a partial thing. I truely do mean that.

At this paticular course, I really can't remember why I picked this paticular one, but I do remember that I thought the shape, contour, and tie-ins were pretty good. Usually I get a lot of pictures of any paticular bunker, from all sorts of angles, if I think it has some merit. I do remember that I was in a hurry to get the rest of this 18 in, so that may have been the reason why I didn't get more.

Keep em coming guys.

John Foley, I'm pretty much dragging these out as I go over them. there is no attempts at a paticular order, but you do have to admit that they are getting better!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

The smart play is not to challenge the bunker.  The recovery shot could be most difficult from the right portion of the bunker.  The bunker at the green hardly protects any of the pin areas so being well left of the fairway bunker does not adversely affect your ability to play into most pin areas.  If this bunker were combined with another bunker that forced a carry into the area near the depicted bunker or you would face a much longer approach shot then great.  Or, notice the area above the bunker to the right, what if this area to the right of the bunker were fairway.  What if to play short of the bunker left a 150 yard approach.  If you played over this bunker to a fairway above it that sloped toward the green you end up with a 120 yard or less approach. Now the depicted bunker is forced upon you to make a decsision that affects your next shot.  Tommy Armour made a great point in his instruction book that the shot facing you should be made based upon what you want to face on the next shot.  I take this to mean that it is not a matter of performing the shot at hand, avoiding the bunker say in this case, but performing the shot in a manner that leaves you the shot you desire for your next shot.  In this case do you want to be short of the bunker, take it out of play, but be faced with a much longer approach, or do you want to challenge the bunker to be in a much better position to attack the green.  This is all theory because the exact situation is not known, however these case studies offer the opportunity for a little make believe which makes this thread very interesting.

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff Fortson,

I think it is brilliant what you said.  You have had the guts to say exactly what you thought even though most others were positive, and it has got me thinking.  I have had the same discussion with an architect from Sweden called Tommy Nordstrøm.  

He also does not think it is necessary to flash up bunkers.  He likes to use mounding and the shadows to show the player where the bunkering is.

I am not sure how much maintenance work would have to go into keeping the sand that high up.

I don't agree with Tom that most bunkers in the wolrld are flashed up.  Not in Europe, at least not in my opinion...

Thank god for those smileys or I would be back looking aggressive like the old days on this site..