[TEPaul]

Certainly you can use pot bunkers randomly in fairways. Even what Donald Ross said about using pot bunkers primarily at the green or green-end does not need to be taken too seriously or two literally! Even in the context of what Ross wrote (and he didn't write that much) you will see if you read him carefully that almost anytime he says something that determinate, in the next paragraph he recommends breaking his own dictate occasionally!

Why? Simple so the golf architecture never becomes susceptible to total quantification and formulaics! Many of the best architects practiced some broad "principles" in their designs but they were just as apt to go against those prinicples occasionally in their desire to mix and match the whole spectrum of architectural options (features and arrangements) open to them.

The best of those guys seem to have a much more heightened sense of the idea that "the exception proves the rule" if they even took the "rule" all that seriously in the first place. You can see exceptions to various rules or principle sprinkled all over NGLA, for instance, examples like #6 and #17 are some of the best of them!

And although they did focus to some extent on the "punitive" nature of a particular hazard they didn't focus on it nearly to the extent we do today! Why? My believe is they were trying to tell us, inspire us really not to concentrate on the negative but to concentrate on the positive! In real golf terms that would be not to focus entirely on the negative and what will happen if I get into that thing but the positive about all the good things that will happen if I avoid it intelligently!

It's probably a little like a rohrshach test--we see more of the scary stuff in the ink blotches and they were trying to inspire us to notice the opposite!

[Ken_Cotner]

I've opined on this before, but I think a deep pot bunker in ther fairway (with no options other than a short blast out) functions PRECISELY the same as a mini-water hazard.  Doesn't mean they are of the same "quality" -- how the hazards fit in with the surroundings can be very different even if they function the same.

Bill,
"Randomly placed fairway pot bunkers placed without regard from 100-325 yards (No one likely to blow over all of them)in the landing area of a par 5 would affect all golfers equally.  Sounds a little boring to me.  Everyone gets a risk of a one shot penalty.zzzzzzzzzzzzz"
Kind of like the Old Course?  

And I LIKE the occasional fairway pot bunker, and the Old Course!

KC

[Patrick_Mucci]

In what instances were pot bunkers used and prefered over
"regular" bunkers ?

From today's architects perspective, are they used minimally due to maintainace, unpopularity, pace of play, or other concerns ?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I like the use of pot bunkers as risk on a short and drivable par 4 or as part of the defenses on a short hitable is 2 par 5. I think there is a place for them as a true deterent with a minumal smacking of luck to hit the green on a short drivable 4.

[Paul Richards]

How about Pete Dye's Whistling Straights?

[TEPaul]

I like what John Bernhardt says above about the use of pot bunkers on a short par 5 and it brings to mind I think the #11 hole at Redtail in Ontario (Donald Steele 1991). They were nearish the green and although technically they may not have been pot bunkers they looked and acted like them as they were smallish and the grass was pulled all the way down to flat sand floors giving the bunkers a "shaddowy" look and making it very difficult to tell what exactly to do. The choice seemed to be to go for the green over them of layup short of them but how to layup short of them was not that clear.

To me they functioned extremely well, creating some very thoughtful strategy! The look of them made you sort of search for them as I recall! Redtail had a pot or two within a couple of other fairways that really did their job too!

Put it this way, thinking about the bunkering of Redtail was a big part of playing many of the holes when I last played it and I was amazed the golf course only has around 30 bunkers! They must have really done their job because it felt like there were many more than that!

[Joel_Stewart]

After seeing the bunkers built on the new course course in Germany I'll bump this thread.

Why aren't these used in America and how difficult is it to be constructed and maintained?

[Mike McGuire]

Why aren't these used in America .............?

Americans would cry like children if they had to deal with pot bunkers. They demand fairness. Having to play away from the hole is not fair.

[Niall C]

Joel,

Great pictures. Is this the course at Budersand that Christoph Meister posted about ?

Can't really answer your question on how easy these sod wall bunkers are to create relative to a "normal" bunker, you would need the views of an architect/contractor/greenkeeper for that, however in terms of maintainance I think I'm right in saying that the St Andrews Links Trust renew the faces of their bunkers on a 5 year rolling programme which is a lot more often than your average course that has them.

To go back to the original question in this thread, what makes a good pot bunker ? I think it is one where the bunker is part of a bigger complex such that the surrounding contours feed into the bunker. Obviously this works best on fast and firm courses such as links. Think of it as a long putt but where you're not actually trying to sink it 

Niall

[Anthony_Nysse]

After seeing the bunkers built on the new course course in Germany I'll bump this thread.

Why aren't these used in America and how difficult is it to be constructed and maintained?

Joel,
  It's my undertanding that the sod walled bunker faces are usually rebuilt every 5-6 years or so because they weather and that they erode...

[Sean_A]

Which golf course has the most effective use of pot bunkers ?

Where do they belong on a golf course ?

Where don't they belong on a golf course ?

I spose an easy answer is to say pot bunkers don't belong where they can't drain well. 

I don't have any preference of where or where not pots should be on well draining land.  I do think because of their penal nature in terms of essentially being much larger than they are due to gathering ground, depth and relative ease with catching a bad lie against a wall, that pots shouldn't be used all that often unless the goal is to produce a championship course. 

I couldn't point out the most effective use of pots, but Muirfield must rate right up there. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

One of the things you'll notice about these bunkers, which differs almost universally from bunkers in America, is the absence of a substantive buffer of rough between the fairway and the bunker.

The bunkers pictured have an inherent gravitational pull with respect to golf balls, whereas, in America, the culture of golf is such that a repelling or velcro like rough is used to surround bunkers to prevent balls from entering them.

So, it's not just the configuration of these bunkers that American golf seems to reject, it's their feeding nature and the absence of a safety net in the form of buffering rough.

I'm a big fan of severe bunkers that use the surrounding terrain as a feeder.

I'm repulsed by buffers of rough that front bunkers, creeks, ponds and any form of hazard or punitive feature.

One of the few departures from this modern American "culture" can be found at The Medalist, where pot bunkers with steep sod faces seem to abound.

I was surprised to encounter this type of bunker as the soil in that area is a sugar sand base, yet, the bunkers look and function well.

One would think that steep faced sod bunkers traversed the Atlantic with the architects of the time, and that as "fairness" reared it's ugly head in American golf that steep sod faced bunkers became architectural pariahs.

[Joel_Stewart]

Thats a good point about Medalist but Normans tinkering tore all of them out after a few years?  I haven't played there in maybe 5 years but it seems that they now have grass face, not sod walls and the course has taken on a whole new look.

[Michael Whitaker]

Thats a good point about Medalist but Normans tinkering tore all of them out after a few years?  I haven't played there in maybe 5 years but it seems that they now have grass face, not sod walls and the course has taken on a whole new look.

Joel - The same change was made to the bunkers at Cherokee Plantation in South Carolina. The sod walls were crumbling with every rain storm and constantly needing to be rebuilt. The grassed over faces have effectively the same playing characteristics but require considerably less effort to maintain.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

The changes Norman made to the 18th hole at The Medalist look more like the work of Fazio than anyone else.

They had straight sod walled bunkers at many of the green sites.

I'm not sure if they've all been removed.

[Mark Chaplin]

A moderate size pot bunker will take 2 guys 3 or 4 days to clear out the old sods and rebuild using a considerable number of new pieces of turf. This needs to be done on average every 10 years if well constructed.

With around 100 bunkers on an average links course that's 70 to 80 man days a year to keep the bunkers in good shape.

To me a revetted bunker is a) a thing of beauty and b) a formidable punishment.

No two irons from the fairway bunker into the heart of the green. From my limited experience of US golf bunkering is more for looks and a place of sanctuary, where as the thicker clinging rough around greens and fairways delivers a harsher test of recovery.

[BCrosby]

Mark -

Interesting to hear the maintenance specifics. I have heard that revetted bunkers at Sugarloaf in Atlanta only last two to three years before requiring a rebuild. I understand they were considering eliminating the sod walls there for that reason.

Speaking of pot bunkers, I read something by Horace Hutchinson last night in which he said that the degree of punishment inflicted by a bunker is inverse to its size. He came up his formula in a discussion of Hell Bunker vs. the Beardies.

With a couple of exceptions that come to mind, Hutchinson's formula makes a great deal of sense.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Our crew of 2-3 men just finished building a sod-wall bunker at Old Macdonald ... the Strath bunker on the second hole, our version of the Eden.  They didn't have to tear out an old bunker first, but it took them 2 1/2 days to build a bunker that is 4 1/2 feet deep.  Maybe I'll post a picture later, it turned out very well.

We would be thrilled if the bunker lasted ten years as Mark suggested, but from what I've heard that would be unusual.  I've been told that Muirfield and St. Andrews rebuild them every five years or so.  Warmer weather makes them rot faster, so building a lot of them in the southeastern USA is not a great idea, which is probably why places like Cherokee and The Medalist changed styles.

[Jamie Barber]

I must say it's surprised me to watch how quickly the revetting faces disappear after a rebuild. The ones of seen last 2-3 years before it's hard to distinguish the turf layers.

I agree with Mark that I find revetted bunkers very visually appealing, although I don't always feel quite the same way when up against the face of one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don't revetted bunkers serve a highly useful purpose, that of introducing a clear penalty for wayward play, by thwarting easy extraction ?

[Emil Weber]

I always loved Pot Bunkers - the way they loook and their psychologic effect on the player.
But a recent "links trip" with my dad to england changed my mind a little bit: whenever he was i one of those Pot Bunkers, he didn't finish the hole because he wasn't able to get out of the bunker. If the good player doesn't even mind them and the not-so-good golfer has problems with getting out of them, are they a good hazard?

[Sean_A]

I always loved Pot Bunkers - the way they loook and their psychologic effect on the player.
But a recent "links trip" with my dad to england changed my mind a little bit: whenever he was i one of those Pot Bunkers, he didn't finish the hole because he wasn't able to get out of the bunker. If the good player doesn't even mind them and the not-so-good golfer has problems with getting out of them, are they a good hazard?

Emil

Yes, pots are still a good hazard just as water and oob are.  The problem at some places, and this is true of all three, is that pots can be over-used.  Earlier Chappers stated that on average links have around 100 pots.  I think this is a gross exaggeration, but it certainly conveys the idea that some links, mainly championship links, are over-bunkered.  One way to avoid such troublesome and often times not terribly fun golf is to avoid championship links.  There are plenty of others which are excellent designs and fun for all. 

Ciao

[Joel_Stewart]

I always loved Pot Bunkers - the way they loook and their psychologic effect on the player.
But a recent "links trip" with my dad to england changed my mind a little bit: whenever he was i one of those Pot Bunkers, he didn't finish the hole because he wasn't able to get out of the bunker. If the good player doesn't even mind them and the not-so-good golfer has problems with getting out of them, are they a good hazard?

Thats a shame about your father but in all honesty, American mentality is to play forward and with pot bunkers you often have to play sideways or backwards.   I don't know how good your father plays but if you're in a pot bunker, you have to take your medicine and live with the results.

[Neil Ballingall]

I always loved Pot Bunkers - the way they loook and their psychologic effect on the player.
But a recent "links trip" with my dad to england changed my mind a little bit: whenever he was i one of those Pot Bunkers, he didn't finish the hole because he wasn't able to get out of the bunker. If the good player doesn't even mind them and the not-so-good golfer has problems with getting out of them, are they a good hazard?

Thats a shame about your father but in all honesty, American mentality is to play forward and with pot bunkers you often have to play sideways or backwards.   I don't know how good your father plays but if you're in a pot bunker, you have to take your medicine and live with the results.

Hi Guys
As a builder/designer of pot bunkers I can understand the frustration some golfers can get from not being able to go forward when entrapped in ''the hazard'' however it is a hazard and should be avoided at all costs, just like water hazards and OOB and therefore no given right to get out without some kind of penalty.
Bunkers you cannot see are another subject and I personally feel have no or little place on a sporting field, St Andrews get away with it because its St Andrews and I would never advocate change to her ladyship hence I be strung up from the highest spire in the town.

When I look at a potential site for these bunkers I will take appropriate advice on the playability aspects, I can then evaluate the size, depth and wall angle that would be appropriate. This changes from course to course from club to club and indeed committee to committee, depends on the handicap of the serving members :-) but what I do insist upon is that the bunker is visible from the intended area of approach, doesnt have to be the sand thats visible just so that someone can make it out as a depression in the land to avoid.

If you have questions about construction or maintenance of pot bunkers then please ask and hopefully I can answer.

cheers
Neil

[Jamie Barber]

As a builder/designer of pot bunkers I can understand the frustration some golfers can get from not being able to go forward when entrapped in ''the hazard'' however it is a hazard and should be avoided at all costs, just like water hazards and OOB and therefore no given right to get out without some kind of penalty.

I agree up to a point, but sometimes a bunker can be too harsh, IMHO.

We have a newly refurbished bunker on a 210 yd par 3. You have to play towards it and it's tucked on left side of green, and gathers balls short from left and right. The face is about 3-4 ft high but near vertical.

Because it's a links and plays firm, you cannot often hit and hold the green (even downwind it's usually a 5 iron+). So you can hit a shot which is nearly perfect, but catches the bunker and it typically finishes up against the front face. For a right hander, the only shot then available is to hit out to knee high rough.

Here I think the bunker should have had an angled face. It would still be a penalty because you'd need a great shot to get up and down, but as it is now you often have no shot, and a penaltly drop back in the bunker is the only option (and then you still have the tough up and down).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()