POT Bunkers - ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[BillV]

Since the most modern, capable options were available for its construction, I surmise that the new Pinehurst #4 must be the closest approach to perfection of the pot bunker.

Anything else therefore must be less than optimal.

[A Clay Man]

The cutest use is on Pete Dye's Blackwolf Run River. He hides em amongst thier other bigger cousins usually long of the green whenst you might think all you have is a chip back, and when you arrive you see your predicament. If you smile and think it's cute you will have a much better chance of an up and down than if you start ranting and raving about how could anybody put a teeny tiny bunker there.
He used some at the CCOD and if I recall correctly he added a twist on a few. He put these cone-like walls to force the explosion shot. While taken out of context the cones might seem unusual but the truth is they will and do mimic the pinnacles that comprise the start of the Santa Rosa Mt's in the La Quinta cove.
And,
After seeing the musical stylings of the gang, I'd say there all Pot Bunkers. And to answer your last? I personally feel that there is nowhere they don't belong, if they're there!  

[BillV]

As a serious aside, what defines a pot bunker?

What parameters include and  exclude such a designation.

For me, a pot bunker has a depth that equals or exceeds its diameter.  Necessarily, they tend to be smaller bunkers, but would one consider the bunker left of the 18th green at GCGC a pot bunker?  The Road Hole Bunker?


Surely Pete Dye has used them the most effectively in modern architecture on a consistent basis.

Other than greenside they are UNFAIR!!!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The Devil's Asshole-Ok, maybe that one was a given for me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill V,

I've never heard the bunker left of # 18 green at GCGC described as a pot bunker, it seems rather large, where I tend to classify pot bunkers as rather small and not overly deep.

I don't consider the DA a pot bunker, but I wouldn't argue against it either.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

Maybe Pine Valley makes the most effective use of pot bunkers.  Isn't there a famous picture of Tommy N trapped on #10?

More seriously, I'm inclined to think pot bunkers make sense for the defense of greens, but not sure I'm thrilled about their deployment as fairway hazards.  Do you share this view?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim, I would agree generally.

I seem to recall old pot bunkers, in the left rough at # 2 at Pine Valley.  Perhaps shrub growth has hidden them over the years.

GCGC has a few bunkers I would consider pot bunkers shared by two holes, in the right rough on # 15, right rough # 14.

Since they are not generally as penal as water, I wouldn't exclude or be critical of their use in off fairway areas, especially on short holes.

[BillV]

To set the record straight, Tommy Naccarato was NOT trapped in the Devil's Asshole.  He extricated in one stroke and I believe holed the putt for par or at least two-putted for bogie.

Patrick, I also think the left bunker on 18 GCGC is too large to be considered a pot, but it almost functions as one.

Pot bunkers need to be small enough to make stance and escape difficult in one shot-as I understand the definition.  Funny? no one else has offered a definition.  Just me and Elmer over there on the sidebar.

[TEPaul]

If you subscribe to Donald Ross's definition of "pot bunkers" it's pretty darn simple---"SUCH BUNKERS ARE TOTALLY below the surface."

He follows that up immediately by stating--"They are most generally placed in the neighborhood of the green."

Although Ross doesn't exactly say so, it seems quite evident that "pot bunkers" are on the small side compared to other types of bunkers!

Not to deviate from Ross's statements or thinking but personally I believe that a "pot bunker" type bunker might be very handy for the future of golf to be used far more prevalently inside fairway lines, instead of it's larger style cousins in that position! And I really do mean inside the fairway lines!! Not even touching the fairway lines in fact--and it would be even better if there was not one or two or even three ways to deal with them. I'm talking about four ways to deal with them!!! (short of them, to the right or left  of them or over them!!)

Since I, for one, think that bunkering inside the fairway lines (as opposed to the far more prevalent fairway flanking bunkers of the "Modern Age" style designs) is the way to go in the future to really create strategy in golf architecture it seems to me that the smaller pot style would meld well with the generally narrower fairway widths of today that are necessary for a variety of reasons, like cost of real estate, cost of fairway width maintenance etc, etc!!!

I hope there are "pot bunkers" in our future! They feel to me like they have strategy written all over them!!!

[TEPaul]

One other caveat from Ross on the "pot bunker" style of bunkering---"particular attention should be paid when locating them to secure good drainage."

Good news from the "Modern Era"! The technology and construction techniques available today are a piece of cake regarding drainage compared to Donald Ross's time so they would again, seem to be a perfect blend of the old with new construction and maintenance techniques!

Do you hear this, Pat Mucci? "Pots" inside the lines could be the answer to vastly increased strategies in our future!! More pots inside the lines and the return of the stymie and we will be in Heaven again!!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Do you think the positioning of pot bunkers should favor catching the longer hitter, especially on a course with limited tees, or some for everyone? You can keep the stymie  

[TEPaul]

Jim, that's a great question really and I would have to think about that! What do you feel about that?

It seems to me in the best of strategic circumstances and scenarios that it might be best to give the less good player a little something to think about and maybe give the better player a little more to think about or maybe a lot more to think about! That makes sense to me since the better player should be able to think better as well as execute better so it seems logical that a designer just might want to ratchet things up a bit on the better longer player!

I don't know either if I would call it 'favor catching the better player or the longer hitter'. If you subscribe to Max Behr's extremely cerebral philosophies on this particular subject it really isn't the job of the designer to "catch" or even penalize a golfer--any golfer--even a very good one! It's the designer's job to create a playing field that inspires any golfer and certainly a good one to react to the playing field in such a way so that he uses all his wits, his observations and concentration to avoid being caught! It might appear at first to be the same thing but on reflection I believe it's almost the opposite!

Behr looked at bunkering and hazard features not as a penalizeing mechanism but features that inspired a sense of "freedom" in the golfer to notice and maximizes the choices available to him!

If you think about it this is the reason they talked so much about strategy that's based on choices and options and the better they are and the more of them there are the more interesting, challenging and enjoyable the game will be.

Sure makes sense to me! And always trying to hit the ball down the center of things and design dictated center corridors doesn't really seem to me to maximize those things!

Of course, these center placed features (pots) are not the only way to design, just a very good one, in my opinion. But there are tons of others, diagonals, capes, doglegs with or without trees, humps, bumps, hollows, contours, slopes, water, elevation changes, degrees of blindness, interesting natural features, deceptions, turning the field of view, green styles, orientations etc, etc! There are so many interesting features and ways to use them and ways to mix them all up!

It also seems to me with a clever use of something like smallish pot bunker features inside the fairway lines that you could combine their function where they would be interesting to a long hitter on the drive, for instance, and then double in function as an interesting feature for the shorter hitter on his second shot etc, etc!

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick Mucci:

Let me add one thing to my earlier comments, even if it is a contradiction.

I'm wondering if there is a role for fairway put bunkers on par 5 holes, something that would make players think more about their second shots, perhaps even think more about their tee shots.

Especially, for the professional level player, too many par 5s seem devoid of strategy.  Maybe some fairway pot bunkers could spice things up a bit more.

[BillV]

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

Rhetorically
Why not a bunch of little water hazards in the middle of the fairway?

Agree with Ross, the greensite is a good place for them.

[TEPaul]

Oh My!?! 'Why not put little water hazards in the middle of the fairway'....(in place of the occasional pot bunker)?

That definitely is RHETORICAL!

[BillV]

How about little Zen Garden boulders a la Sherwood? ? ? ? ? ?

That'd teach 'em!

[TEPaul]

Not even rhetorically speaking that's not quite as bad as little water hazards in the middle of fairways--but it's close!

[TEPaul]

On third thought, BillV, regarding little Zen rock gardens in the middle of fairways I would say, as did Geo. Crump on Colt's siting idea on #2 green, Pine Valley---"NO GOOD!"

But on little water hazards in the middle of fairways, I might go for that but only under two conditions: 1/ They look really, really bad, and 2/ they smell worse!!

[A Clay Man]

Don't I recall reading about a famous bunker in the middle of the 18th(?) green at PV? If that were still there would it be the most famous of all pot bunkers?

[TEPaul]

Aclayman:

It was not a pot bunker it was the famous "pimple", probably about 2ft high and about 4ft at the base!! Most extraordinary feature almost anyone has seen on a green. John Arthur Brown took matters into his own hands and removed it. That was not as contrary to Crump's intentions as some might think because the evidence is there that Crump was using it probably temporarily to penalize golfers who sliced the ball across the green and it's said he was going to remove it himself and accomplish his goal some other way.

If you "slice a ball across" #18 today you do have some problems--believe me!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Perhaps "catch" was the wrong terminology. I was thinking ahead to a missed shot when traversing the chosen path.
  
I too feel that the position and severity of hazards should match the skills of the golfer. A pot bunker in a fairway 180 or 200 yds. from the tee puts too big a demand on the less skilled whereas a shallower bunker in that area offers a chance for recovery, with some penalty, for this player. Use them around a green and any player has a reasonable chance for escape.
Place them farther out and they can be a real temptation for the bigger hitter, especially if blowing over one really offers a reward. I think this follows the LOC as it offers a player the freedom you speak of and they probably would do double duty if used in this area, as you suggested.
It seems to me that the best holes in golf offer many ways to play them, with equal rewards if you are smart enough to pick the proper track and lucky enough to execute the shots demanded by your choice, no matter the type of features used by the architect.  
 

There is a course near me that has a 10' circle of muck with reeds growing out of it located smack dab in the middle of its fairway. It's on a dogleg right par five and it cannot be seen from the tee, if trying to cut the corner. It will only catch the longest drivers but can come into play on the second shot of those more conservative players. I like this feature and the penalty for being in it is not really any worse than being in a pot bunker. The penalty might even be less  for the severly sand-challenged among us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I don't know why they couldn't be used to heighten or intensify the risk.

Some holes have adjacent out-of-bounds, adjacent water,
what would be wrong with well placed pot bunkers to heighten risk/reward without being overly punitive ?

[ed getka]

Tommy,
 #8 at Rustic has what I would consider a pot bunker front left guarding the upper shelf of the green. Would you agree?

[Chris Kane]

If you refer to pot bunkers, then wouldn't the most logical choice be one of the links courses of the UK, of which the style has been replicated in the aformentioned courses in this thread.

The Old Course has what I consider to be the best pot bunkers - simply becuase they are completely random and not always fair.  To say that pot bunkers are only fair when placed greenside ignores what I consider to be one of the joys of the game: that is isn't always fair and sometimes its just too bad.

Sometimes you'll have the luck and other times you won't!  Isn't that part of the game?  I agree with Pat Mucci when he says that water hazards and out of bounds can be just as penal.  What a way to give the player something to think about, placing hazards which will more often than not cost him a shot if he finds them, while still offering the slim chance of a heroic recovery to save par.

Don't know if I'm right off the mark here, what do you think?