The case for topshot bunkers

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

I know you are making a sophisticated argument that these bunkers affect all golfers, even skilled players who can easily fly them, but I'm still troubled by the fact that the unskilled player who hits the ball in the bunker will be penalized the most.

A couple of months ago I was playing a resort course with my sister, who can break 100 but doesn't get a lot of lift on the ball.  On a long par 5, she hit her third or fourth shot into a bunker that was about 40 yards from the green, leaving her a really challenging shot which she made a hash of. 

I've played this course maybe 20 times and it occcurred to me that I had never been in this bunker.  Why is it there?  Other than the occasional long hitter who goes for the green in two - the hole is 580 yards from the next to back tees - the only people who end up in this bunker are high handicappers.

I just don't like hazards which disproportionately affect unskilled players, even if they have architectural interest for all.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If visual obfuscation is the goal, why fill such bunkers with sand which:  a) increases maintenance costs; and b) doubly punishes the poor soul whose problems are already self-inflicted?

I agree, and think no sand is just about as effective as ones with sand, and in at least one of the photos is appears that the player wouldn't see the sand, only the mounded up soil that frames it.

On the other hand, very few players would ever be in a top shot bunker so it could be treated differently from the other bunkers on the course, i.e. more like a sandy waste area w/no rakes and minimal upkeep. That approach would make for a negligible increase in maintenance cost.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I know you are making a sophisticated argument that these bunkers affect all golfers, even skilled players who can easily fly them, but I'm still troubled by the fact that the unskilled player who hits the ball in the bunker will be penalized the most.

Agreed, but requiring a minimum carry of 100 or so yards for the unskilled player, on a hole or two, is not unreasonable.

The elimination or failure to reintroduce top shot bunkers represents, architecturally catering to the lowest common denominator.
Is there no minimum test which they should be subjected to ?

How would Macdonald's/Raynor's/Bank's "short" hole be viewed ?

Does it not present a test to all golfers, unduly weighted to the less skilled golfer, requiring them to carry their tee shot to the island/volcano green set amidst surrounding deep bunkers ?

The concept of not offending or testing the weakest or most unskilled golfers by sanitizing the golf course is absurd.

Why should those golfers who are not the most unskilled be deprived of such an unusual, effective feature ?

A couple of months ago I was playing a resort course with my sister, who can break 100 but doesn't get a lot of lift on the ball.  On a long par 5, she hit her third or fourth shot into a bunker that was about 40 yards from the green, leaving her a really challenging shot which she made a hash of. 

She should have, mentally and tactically, avoided that bunker.
If we're going to cleanse and sanitize golf courses, ridding them of any and all features that adversely affect the unskilled golfer, you'll set architecture back 1,000 years.

I've played this course maybe 20 times and it occcurred to me that I had never been in this bunker.  Why is it there?  Other than the occasional long hitter who goes for the green in two - the hole is 580 yards from the next to back tees - the only people who end up in this bunker are high handicappers.

High handicappers who rarely interface with fairway bunkers that affect the low handicapppers game.

What happened to aspiring to improve one's game, mentally and physically.

The notion that any feature that interfaces with the unskilled golfer should be eradicated is absurd.

If any course has those features, in spades, it's NGLA, with the 18th hole probably being the best example.

When I couldn't hit a tee shot 180 with my best, I had to learn to tack around the course, to avoid features that I used to routinely fly over.

Are the unskilled also unbrained ?

And if so, should the architect cater to stupidity and/or the lowest common denominator ?

I just don't like hazards which disproportionately affect unskilled players, even if they have architectural interest for all.

[Matthew Petersen]

I just don't like hazards which disproportionately affect unskilled players, even if they have architectural interest for all.

I think all hazards are this way. Unskilled players are more likely to find a hazard and (if it's a bunker) much less likely to be able to extricate themselves quickly.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Another Ross, in the Phila. area, that features top-shot bunkers (actually 2 holes) is Aronimink... 13th and 15th holes.  Can't say that i've seen many people in these traps, but they do provide an interesting visual as you down the fairway.  Almost an aiming point.

WW

[Dunlop_White]

Like Pat Mucci, I'm a big fan of "top shot bunkers" -- often called cross-bunkers. Some even call these "duffer's headaches". 

Classic architects envisioned golf as a ground game. As such, they used the land as an opportunity to position bunkers. Donald Ross, for example, employed cross-bunkers — often patterned in diagonal alignments -- immediately off the tee to direct golfers in conjunction with the prevailing movement of the terrain. Sometimes cross-bunkers guided you up a slope or over a ridge to a landing area "not readily visible from the tee". Other times, Ross intended for golfers to utilize their visual impact to orient and shape suggested shots in conjunction with the flow of the land. They also played tricks on depth perception, because golfers could not readily visualize the extent of terrain to the target beyond these bunkers.

Through the years, however, especially during the Depression, some heavy-handed green committees abandoned cross-bunkers in a wholesale effort to alleviate maintenance particularly since they were often well short of play -- and therefore were considered meaningless. Many think, master architect, A.W. Tillinghast was the one person responsible for the wholesale elimination of cross-bunkers  in the 1930’s. Experiencing financial woes during the Great Depression, Tillinghast was forced to go on the payroll of “The PGA of
America” in 1935 and spent four years touring the country, inspecting golf courses, and advising them on how to save money during those hard times. His most frequent advice was to fill-in bunkers. His primary targets were “cross-bunkers” located just off the tee. Tilly justified their elimination because they were expensive to maintain at the time -- and they caused “duffer’s headaches”. Yet the very one’s that Tillinghast filled-in formed the fabric of strategic golf design in the US.

Classic “cross-bunkers” provide visual assistance with orientation and direction and visual challenges with depth and distance. Plus, they swallowed up a few grounders.

Nevertheless, Tilly's removal of these "top shot bunkers" or "duffers headaches" served as a nationwide endorsement for clubs to remove these themselves "in house". Plus, generations of architects and green chairmen thereafter took his lead and designed courses without strategic “cross bunkers” and “carry bunkers” in mind.

Today, a dedicated group of restoration specialists have faithfully devoted their talents to restoring and bringing back these distinctive design features. To me, none are more symbolic of Ross's style and identity than his cross-bunkers. Golf aficionados across the country should applaud these efforts.

[Mike McGuire]

Prichard included one on a master plan on our Non Langford nine at West Bend.

They look great but the old timers will kill the idea at a lot of clubs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

The "topshot" bunker on # 12 at Mountain Ridge is unlike the one's in the photos presented.

The sand is more than visible, it stands out like a wall of sand confronting the golfer.

And when combined with the bunkers flanking the fairway, presents the illusion that the DZ is much smaller than its physical dimensions.

When Bill Brightly visits with his camera, that one picture will be worth thousands of words.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop,

Do you think topshot bunkers, numerically, are primarily a  Ross feature, to the exclusion of the other Golden Age architects ?

[Dunlop_White]

Visualizing the bunker shoulders, especially bold ones that pick up the shadows in the morning or late afternoon, influences me the same way as visualizing the white sand. Both provide visual contrast. Most restoration specialists today are using his flat sand bases, so it's difficult in these situations to see the sand on anything but a downhill hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop,

The nice thing about # 12 is that the tee is slightly elevated and the area of the top shot bunker in a slightly depressed area, so that the sand is highly visible, with the back of the top shot bunker obscuring some of the fairway.

[Dunlop_White]

Ross, Tillinghast and others!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop,

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any AWT topshot bunkers.
AWT's signature cross bunker seems to be the 'sahara" feature.

Ross seems to have used them extensively.

Interestingly enough, all of them at Mountain Ridge were cut into natural rises which enhance their visibility from the tee which in turn has a greater impact in the mind of the golfers.

I'll have Bill Brightly take photos of the topshot bunker on # 12 and the natural rises that housed the topshot bunkers on #'s 5 and 7 so that you can see how Ross utilized the land to his architectural advantage.

[jonathan_becker]

Here's one of the best examples I've come across.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

It's a great complex, but I don't know that I'd classify it as a topshot bunker, especially when the prevailing wind is in your face on that elevated tee.

The photo is a little deceiving as it loses the extent of the elevation

[jonathan_becker]

Jonathan,

It's a great complex, but I don't know that I'd classify it as a topshot bunker, especially when the prevailing wind is in your face on that elevated tee.

The photo is a little deceiving as it loses the extent of the elevation

Ok, and in regards to other architects, off the top of my head, what about holes 5 and 6 at Shinnecock?

[D_Malley]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34384781@N08/6983074872/

Jim Wagner recently added this bunker on our 16th hole at Paxon Hollow, along with a new back tee.  From the new back tee the line of play is directly over the bunker.  the middle tee is more to the left of this view.  I like the bunker mainly because it obstructs the players view from the back tee only and causes a more uncomfortable feeling on the tee shot.  I often have to answer the question of why we put this bunker in.

not sure if the link above will work,  if not some help would be appreciated.

[Joe Bausch]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34384781@N08/6983074872/

Jim Wagner recently added this bunker on our 16th hole at Paxon Hollow, along with a new back tee.  From the new back tee the line of play is directly over the bunker.  the middle tee is more to the left of this view.  I like the bunker mainly because it obstructs the players view from the back tee only and causes a more uncomfortable feeling on the tee shot.  I often have to answer the question of why we put this bunker in.

not sure if the link above will work,  if not some help would be appreciated.

[Dunlop_White]

Pat, both the Klein article from way back and A recent Whitten article reveals that Tilly used these often. Sorry about specifics. Also, it appears Raynor has a few at Yeamans.

[George Pazin]

The most stunning shot I've seen in person was during the match play playoff at the US Am at Oakmont in 2003. A slew of guys headed down the 10th, which did its usual job and weeded all but 3 out, left playing off for 1 spot. As the 3 teed off on 11, I stood about 30 yards ahead of the tee, swiveling my head with each tee shot blasted up the hill. Only one of the guys didn't - he cold topped his tee shot. It literally ended up about 75 yards ahead, managing to find the incredibly narrow strip of short grass, the path mowed for walkers. I've never seen a golfer that good - remember, this guy in the in the playoff for the match play portion of the US AM - top a tee shot.

He knocked his next shot up on the ridge, and then narrowly missed getting up and down from the ridge. He ended up bogeying the hole and the other two guys advanced to the wonderful 13th by themselves.

Now why, oh why, would you want to punish someone like that further?

Why would you want to slow down the play of someone struggling further?

What a waste of time and maintenance money....

Maybe 80 years ago they had their place. Mishits at that time didn't fly 280 yards and just a little right. Now, the only people you are punishing are the people who need it least.

There is no case.

[Phil Benedict]

When putting in bunkers I believe the architect should ask what type of player is likely to end up in this hazard.  If the answer is only weaker players the architect should hesitate to put in the bunker.

On the Raynor short all types of players have to deal with the deep bunkers although of course weaker players will hit in them more often and have more trouble recovering.  That's the nature of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When putting in bunkers I believe the architect should ask what type of player is likely to end up in this hazard. 
If the answer is only weaker players the architect should hesitate to put in the bunker.

Are you advocating for the removal of any and all features where the weaker player is more prone to interface with them ?

Greenside bunkers ?

Is the weaker player, and I'd appreciate your defining the "weaker" player, to be deprived of a challenge unique to them ?

Is the weaker player to be granted architectural passage such that they avoid challenge.

Certainly, there has to be a test of their driving skill and topshot bunkers, as rare as they are, provide that challenge.

On the Raynor short all types of players have to deal with the deep bunkers although of course weaker players will hit in them more often and have more trouble recovering.  That's the nature of the game.



Isn't the nature of the game to provide a challenge for ALL level of golfers ?

How is the weaker golfer to improve if he's not challenged with his driver ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, both the Klein article from way back and A recent Whitten article reveals that Tilly used these often. Sorry about specifics. Also, it appears Raynor has a few at Yeamans.

Dunlop,

Could you post Brad Klein's article.

Thanks

[Jim_Kennedy]

Raynor placed three sets of them at Hotchkiss School GC. They were on the present day 5th, a downhill 'Short'; the 7th, an uphill 'Long'; and the 8th, a downhill 'Eden'. They show up in the '34 aerial of the course, but they're long gone.

None of them would have seriously impacted the view of the greens on the par 3s, and the set on the par 5 would not have affected the view of the fairway.
They were there to catch the topped shot.

[JC Urbina]

Patrick,

When laying out the 11th hole at Common Ground golf course in Denver I used a small mound and some bunkers right off the tee to visually distract the golfer from the distant views,  I did not use the Top Shot bunker as you describe for a "Test" of the driver.  I proceeded to align the fairway bunkers off to the left of the landing area so that your eye continued looking to the left even though the landing area was straight ahead.  The Fore (Top Shot) bunker is about 125 yards off the back tee.

I think that many Golden Age golf course architects used the bunkers for varying reasons not just for tee shot intimidation.  I agree with your other premise that visual distortion was more often the case.

Dunlop is correct, Yeamans Hall has a few of these bunkers right off the tee to distract and or visually stimulate the tee shot.  # 7 the Road Hole immediately comes to mind.  Also the 8th hole at Yeamans  "Hogs Back" has that same bunker right on the center line.  When I restored these two bunkers they were last on the list to reintroduce, you can understand why.