If bunkers are meant to be hazards shouldn't

[Patrick_Mucci]

fairway bunkers be modeled after the fairway bunkers found at Oakmont and GCGC where the feature is a combination of a bunker with a fronting berm ?

That combination allow courses that don't enjoy superior drainage to create more vertical features that can function in a similar fashion to much deeper bunkers.

These bunkers are intimidating, visually, physically and mentally and are to be avoided at all costs.

They would place a higher premium on driving accuracy and would seem easy to craft, even as additional bunkers meant to interface with the longer drives.

What modern course have a good number of these bunkers ?

Or, is their existence limited to the ODG's ?

[Joe Leenheer]

Patrick,

I love the bunkers at Oakmont.  I love the challenge of avoiding them at all cost knowing that I will more than likely be penalized if I don't.  You can't daydream your way around that course.  Well you can but you may shoot 1000.

Brookside CC (Canton) is one course that comes to mind where a majority of fairway bunkers have a raised lip or berm fronting them.

From Oakmont's Website...

Enter another Oakmont myth, the one that says although H.C. designed the course, it was W.C. who turned it into a legendary monster, throwing furrowed bunkers all over the place and making the greens wickedly fast. W.C was also the most vocal, with historic pronouncements. As to the many bunkers, he said, “A shot poorly played should be a shot irrevocably lost.” And as to the unrelenting difficulty of Oakmont, he sounded a bit like Captain Ahab in pursuit of that whale: “Let the clumsy, the spineless, the alibi artist stand aside.”

[Ally Mcintosh]

I really like the Oakmont bunkers as well.

But this is a common trait, grass faced bunkers with raised lips. Just not always executed as well as at Oakmont.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick I agree that most fairway bunkering is way too benign. The fairway bunkers at Oakmont are laid out in a chain, and they function as a true one shot penalty because you are forced to pitchout sideways. But most fairway bunkering allows you to hit towards the green with only nominal loss of distance.

[Steve Wilson]

Wouldn't the best of both worlds be a fairway bunker that tempts one to play to the green but offers such a fine line of risk reward that instead of a single stroke penalty you might end up with two or more if the grand coup doesn't quite come off. 

Of course, the sensible or less talented golfer could still play out sideways or forwards with a more lofted club, but there would be the siren call of the miracle shot.  Sort of the golf equivalent of "Someone hold my beer and everyone watch this."   

[Kyle Harris]

Nae.

The hazard of the hazard is uncertainty. Having too much of the strict De facto one-shot penalty type Bunker eliminates a vital combination of luck/skill which helps create drama during a round. A golf should draw a good, workable lie in a Bunker a less than 50% amount of the time.

That is not to say that this type of Bunker has no place on a golf course.

I think maintenance is the way to further the goal of a hazardous hazard. By varying the maintenance, the unpredictable nature of what lie the golfer could draw in the Bunker (on a range from good to awful) should be enough to provide the challenge of which you speak.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think bunkers should offer variety in their penalties.

However, I walked round the hotel course at Portmarnock last Christmas with an esteemed Irish pro and he said that he thought really good players should be able to advance a ball out of a bunker at least 80 or 90 yards....

And I have to say that I thought that was quite a good yardstick... If your "default" fairway bunker extracted this sort of penalty, I think that isn't far off the mark... But again, variety of bunkers with a variety of penalties should be the order of the day...

[Sean_A]

I will always err on the side of very harsh bunkers.  My proviso would be that there shouldn't be that many bunkers.  For instance, Oakmont has a ton.  Ideally I would fill many in.  Because Oakmont wants to be a beast of a championship course, make the difficulty as Kyle suggests, a bit random.  My thought would be around the greens a good play by a pro should have a good chance (say 45-70%) to get up n' down.  In the fairways, I would lean much more toward a good play by a pro having a slim chance of getting up and down (say less than 15%).  Of course, that means for the rest of us poor schmucks, the odds are less than half for the pros.  I guess thats why Oakmont is considered a beast.

Ciao

[Josh Tarble]

what happened to Oakmont's furrowed rakes?  I've long thought that's how bunkers should be kept. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nae.

The hazard of the hazard is uncertainty. Having too much of the strict De facto one-shot penalty type Bunker eliminates a vital combination of luck/skill which helps create drama during a round. A golf should draw a good, workable lie in a Bunker a less than 50% amount of the time.

That is not to say that this type of Bunker has no place on a golf course.

I think maintenance is the way to further the goal of a hazardous hazard. By varying the maintenance, the unpredictable nature of what lie the golfer could draw in the Bunker (on a range from good to awful) should be enough to provide the challenge of which you speak.

Kyle,

For a while I advocated for not maintaining bunkers on a daily basis, but, perhaps on a "needs" basis.

The problem I'm having with that position is that I seem to be observing more and more unraked bunkers, where golfers enter, hit their shot and exit, without raking the bunker, making play from that bunker exponentially more difficult for those that follow.

In addition, in competitions, without maintainance, would the early competitors leave the bunker in less than ideal condition for those that follow.

It's a clear dilemma.

From both a cost and play perspective, I'd opt for the "needs" basis for maintainance, provided golfers who didn't properly restore the bunker were penalized.

In terms of "systemic" introduction, I never advocated that position.
Neither Oakmont nor GCGC has the fairway bunker configuration I described, on every fairway bunker

[Ian Andrew]

Bunkers need depth and concequence to have a strategic value.
A shallow perfectly maintained bunker might as well be fairway turf for an above average player.

I also share Sean's opinion that fewer nastier bunkers is far more interesting architecture than lots of  nasty or playable bunkers.

Pat, I think they are a good model for poor soils, but 99% of the time digging longer drain lines solve that issue just as effectively.
Therefore it comes down to aesthetics and what you like.

[Jeb Bearer]

I think bunkers should walk a thin line. Obviously, they have to be penal to dictate strategy, there must be some risk involved with challenging a hazard.

 That being said, the recovery is a significant part of the game, and one of the most interesting. Bunkers that force you to play out sideways every single time eliminate that facet, and in that way are not much different from water hazards that require a drop.

 Therefore, bunkers should be penal enough to provide risk but should allow for a daring (and dangerous) recovery shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bunkers need depth and concequence to have a strategic value.
Agreed

A shallow perfectly maintained bunker might as well be fairway turf for an above average player.
Agreed

I also share Sean's opinion that fewer nastier bunkers is far more interesting architecture than lots of nasty or playable bunkers.

Pat, I think they are a good model for poor soils, but 99% of the time digging longer drain lines solve that issue just as effectively.
Therefore it comes down to aesthetics and what you like.

Ian, isn't it the severity of the bunker that makes it more strategic and more penal ?

For some reason I never found those bunkers, aesthetically, not to be pleasing.
They seem to be indicators of serious golf, IMHO.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Oakmont has great greens, bunkers (Lord don't strike me dead) not so much.

[Ben Sims]

Is a bunker's worth tied at all to its maintenance intensiveness? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is a bunker's worth tied at all to its maintenance intensiveness? 

Ben,

I don't think that maintenance cost is an indicator of the architectural value of a bunker.

The "road hole" bunker, DA and other bunkers prone to be maintenance intensive don't have architectural value inversely proportional to their maintenance costs 

[Ben Sims]

Is a bunker's worth tied at all to its maintenance intensiveness? 

Ben,

I don't think that maintenance cost is an indicator of the architectural value of a bunker.

The "road hole" bunker, DA and other bunkers prone to be maintenance intensive don't have architectural value inversely proportional to their maintenance costs 

Patrick,

I would agree, but only to a point.  That is to say, the market will decide what it can bear.  I think architectural value is connected to how repeatable the feature could be elsewhere.  Your OP leads me to believe that you think these types of bunkers could be beneficial elsewhere.  Am I correct?  At any rate, I saw what needed to be done to keep many of those steep grass-faced bunkers at Oakmont.  Fly mowing that many bunkers is crazy intensive.  Is there a way that you know of to get the same architectural impact without the same construction as the bunkers at Oakmont?

I agree that they are fearsome.  And Oakmont continues to be one of my very favorite golf courses I've ever visited.  But that sort of difficulty probably shouldn't be repeated too often. 

[Chip Gaskins]

Oakmont has great greens, bunkers (Lord don't strike me dead) not so much.

Agreed, the whole idea of raising the faces on their fairway bunkers...  its a double whammy

[Connor Dougherty]

The problem I'm having with that position is that I seem to be observing more and more unraked bunkers, where golfers enter, hit their shot and exit, without raking the bunker, making play from that bunker exponentially more difficult for those that follow.

In addition, in competitions, without maintainance, would the early competitors leave the bunker in less than ideal condition for those that follow.

It's a clear dilemma.

From both a cost and play perspective, I'd opt for the "needs" basis for maintainance, provided golfers who didn't properly restore the bunker were penalized.

Patrick, I understand what you are saying, but the same could be said for divots. Should the competitive golfer have to hit out of a sandy divot or an unfilled one when his ball lands in it? It wasn't originally part of the course and makes it far more difficult for those that follow.

I mention this because my coach's son fractured his wrist playing on the Nike Tour hitting out of a divot, and hasn't played the same since.

Smooth out any severe changes to the sand (i.e. where you dig your feet in) and leave everything else. But for now, I'll rake for the people behind me.

[Doug Siebert]

I think bunkers should offer variety in their penalties.

However, I walked round the hotel course at Portmarnock last Christmas with an esteemed Irish pro and he said that he thought really good players should be able to advance a ball out of a bunker at least 80 or 90 yards....

And I have to say that I thought that was quite a good yardstick... If your "default" fairway bunker extracted this sort of penalty, I think that isn't far off the mark... But again, variety of bunkers with a variety of penalties should be the order of the day...

I like that a lot!

Pot bunkers where you have to come out sideways are too much of a penalty, but typical US style flat fairway bunkers where pros and good amateurs hardly have more trouble than they do from a good lie in the fairway serve mostly as a penalty to poor players, and do little to threaten good players enough for them to care to change their strategy off the tee.

If you look at what a scratch player and what a bogey player does out of the the typical low lip fairway bunker from 150 yards, you see what I mean.  The scratch player is likely on the green, perhaps not with a great birdie chance, but par is not a problem.  The bogey player tries to put it on the green, but usually fails and could end up almost anywhere (including playing three from the same bunker)

Now replace that low lip fairway bunker with a higher lip where it isn't possible (without a miracle shot or getting lucky to be in just the right place in the bunker) for a good player to advance the ball far enough to reach the green.  It is suddenly a penalty for the scratch golfer, as birdie is taken totally out of the picture and par is no certainty.  But for the bogey player, it doesn't really make any difference - in fact, it might HELP him, since he won't try to reach the green when he almost certainly wouldn't anyway, and may get a better result with the deliberate lay up!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Connor,

I think the difference between a divot in the fairway and the displacing of sand in a bunker is the size of the footprint  (pun intended)

The area affected in the bunker is substantially greater and the configuration of many bunkers leads to the ball being fed to the same location, thus the golfer is more apt to be able to influence play behind him because of his entry and exit tracks along with his stance and area of explosion.
Left unraked, and worse yet exaggerating the footprints could unfairly impact golfers subsequently entering the bunker.

I've advocated raking on a needs basis as a method of reducing maintainance costs for decades.
I still think it's an idea with merit.

Many clubs have a debate on mandating caddies.
While the ultimate responsibility lies with the golfer, caddies often rake bunkers that would go unraked if left to the member.
Hence I tend to favor the mandate in combination with raking on a needs basis.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would agree, but only to a point.  That is to say, the market will decide what it can bear. 

I don't think a few strategic fairway bunkers would have a significant impact on maintenance costs

 I think architectural value is connected to how repeatable the feature could be elsewhere. 

Not sure I understand how architectural value is connected to repetition ?
I'd place a high AV on the DA at PV, but I haven't seen it repeated elsewhere.
Conversely, I place a high AV on the template holes of CBM/SR/CB and those holes, by definition, are repeated elsewhere.


Your OP leads me to believe that you think these types of bunkers could be beneficial elsewhere.  Am I correct? 

Yes, absolutely.
You see them at NGLA, GCGC, Oakmont and other courses, mostly older courses.

At any rate, I saw what needed to be done to keep many of those steep grass-faced bunkers at Oakmont.  Fly mowing that many bunkers is crazy intensive.  Is there a way that you know of to get the same architectural impact without the same construction as the bunkers at Oakmont?
Certainly the angle and configuration of the fronting berm will affect maintenance, but not to the degree that it will break the bank (another pun intended).  The berm doesn't have to be 10 feet high.  I think there can be an inverse relationship between bunker depth and berm height.
Ie, the deeper the bunker the lower the berm; the shallower the bunker the higher the berm.
This also provides variety which so many seem to crave.

The other aspect of the maintenance issue is agronomic.
I've been told that grasses are/have been developed which grow to a lower height, thereby necessitating less mowing.
That would seem to be an ideal grass for sloped areas that don't get much play, such as fronting berms


I agree that they are fearsome.  And Oakmont continues to be one of my very favorite golf courses I've ever visited. 
But that sort of difficulty probably shouldn't be repeated too often. 

While there's a degree of repetition at Oakmont, it's not overwhelming.
Ditto GCGC.
In fact, at GCGC you see this feature on # 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17, yet, there's never a sense of repetition due to the location, configuration and scale of those bunkers.  So I would disagree with those who say too much of them isn't good.

Never, in all my years of play at GCGC have I ever heard a member or a guest  complain about the prolific use of that feature.
And, I never recall seeing similar complaints on GCA.com.

So I can only conclude that they work quite well.

The problem at GCGC is that some holes are land locked and can't be lengthened, hence these somewhat intimidating and ferocious bunkers are out of play off the drive of the long ball hitter.

A dilemma is:
Do you move those bunkers to the modern DZ, or do you leave them as is, and ADD new ones to the modern DZ ?  ?  ?

Perhaps each hole would have to have that question addressed separately.

Hope that helps

.

[Tim Gavrich]

I don't know that all fairway bunkers should be molded such that they're a definite penalty for the best 5% of players who may end up in them if it means that that hazard becomes one-dimensional for the remaining 95% (i.e. auto-layup). The option of trying to advance the ball pretty far--perhaps all the way to the green--is an exciting one and shouldn't be discounted in rigid adherence to the "bunkers are meant to be hazards" axiom.

I'd also disagree that a less imposing fairway bunker is nearly akin to a lie in the fairway for merely "above-average" players. For big-time ams and touring pros, sure, but there is still a psychological barrier that must be overcome when a player steps into a bunker, be it shallow or deep.

I wonder if Oakmont would be tougher if all its greenside bunkers were inlaid with rough instead of sand. My guess is that, in U.S. Open conditions, it would be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know that all fairway bunkers should be molded such that they're a definite penalty for the best 5% of players who may end up in them if it means that that hazard becomes one-dimensional for the remaining 95% (i.e. auto-layup).

Tim,  the remaining  95 % can't reach them

The option of trying to advance the ball pretty far--perhaps all the way to the green--is an exciting one and shouldn't be discounted in rigid adherence to the "bunkers are meant to be hazards" axiom.

If the golfer who can reach them off the tee can hit the green with his approach, you have to question their effectiveness and purpose as a hazard.


I'd also disagree that a less imposing fairway bunker is nearly akin to a lie in the fairway for merely "above-average" players. For big-time ams and touring pros, sure, but there is still a psychological barrier that must be overcome when a player steps into a bunker, be it shallow or deep.
But, if that golfer can't reach them off the tee, they're a non factor other than perhaps mentally

I wonder if Oakmont would be tougher if all its greenside bunkers were inlaid with rough instead of sand. My guess is that, in U.S. Open conditions, it would be.

I think it's more a function of whether you're above or below the hole rather than the condition of the lie

[Jeb Bearer]

The option of trying to advance the ball pretty far--perhaps all the way to the green--is an exciting one and shouldn't be discounted in rigid adherence to the "bunkers are meant to be hazards" axiom.

If the golfer who can reach them off the tee can hit the green with his approach, you have to question their effectiveness and purpose as a hazard.

But if he has no choice but to pitch out sideways, then don't they have little interest? Wouldn't the ideal be somewhere in the middle, where the golfer can choose to either try and advance the ball, and risk a two-shot penalty, or accept his one-shot penalty and pitch out?