[Carl Johnson]

At at very simplistic level, good design (outside of golf) has been said to derive from (1) function, (2) cost and (3) aesthetics.  So, if Michael Graves Design comes up with a lettuce spinner-drier that looks good, doesn't cost much, but doesn't really work, it's not good design.  Watching the Trump Open at Doral today, with the aerial views highlighting the amoeba bunkers, in my mind there came the questions: Are these well designed bunkers - in terms of function, cost and aesthetics?  How well do they perform purely from a competition standpoint?  What's the cost? And how do they look: (a) from above in photos/blimp? (2) to spectators? (3) to the players (from whatever business and aesthetic interst they may have)?

[Wade Whitehead]

The only time they appeared to present a hazard was when players hit the ball fat.

WW

[Tom Kelly]

Unfortunately I think over the years 'form' has been disregarded in favour of 'function' and 'cost' at most golf courses.

[RJ_Daley]

My own idea on the amoeba looking bunkers has been that they are the result of idealizing the graceful capes and bays and tongues of the successful early architects like MacKenzie and Thomas, whereby once golf course plan drafting became more standardized - leading to computer aided design, block insert graphics of an amoeba looking symbol for a bunker became conventional wisdom.  So particularly with presentations of golf course drafted plans to present as a proposed new course to committees or developers, the drafter just plopped in amoeba to represent the location of proposed bunkers, and pretty soon, the construction guys just started accepting the form as conventional way to shape them.

That is my theory (often rebuked by some of our archie contributors) but I'm sticking to it.   

[Lyne Morrison]

RJ - That's an interesting perspective and not one I am familiar with. It does seem a little harsh on architects.

In line with Tom's comment and from my experience there are certainly superintendents who are overly influenced by the dimensions of the turning circle of a bunker rake and the effect mechanical maintenance regimes have on the 'time efficiency' of overall course maintenance. This attitude and approach to works has an immediate effect on the shape of a bunker and the character of a course.

Where feasible - and affordable - surely it is desirable to facilitate more hand raking. This will in turn support superior design outcomes, as we see at many of the more highly resolved courses.

Lyne

[Tom Kelly]

Where feasible - and affordable - surely it is desirable to facilitate more hand raking. This will in turn support superior design outcomes, as we see at many of the more highly resolved courses.

Lyne

It seems fairly obvious to me and all comes back to the old saying "quality over quantity".

Too many courses I see are over bunkered, with numerous bunkers that very very rarely come into play but are just there for 'eye candy' though due to the maintenance issues discussed they end up just looking drab. I love the look of the masses of sand at Cypress Point etc but unless you can keep most of it natural as a 'wasteland' type area or have a huge budget, the cost and time devoted to maintaining is surely just going to be at the detrimental of the rest of the course/budget.

A few well placed, well kept and good looking bunkers do far more for me than sand everywhere in boring amoebas.

[Thomas Dai]

A sand bunker should not be akin to a kids garden sandpit.

A sand bunker should be a hazard, although there should always be an alternative way around it. If you get greedy, a bunker should cost you shots unless you recover with quality shotmaking thereafter.

The practice of raking bunkers with ride-on machines might save manpower but otherwise it's been a big negative IMO. As Lyne so excellently puts it - "overly influenced by the dimensions of the turning circle of a bunker rake and the effect mechanical maintenance regimes have on the 'time efficiency' of overall course maintenance. This attitude and approach to works has an immediate effect on the shape of a bunker and the character of a course." Good call.

Although they may not look as nice on photos and or on TV, grass bunkers are great - easy to build and maintain plus being easier for lessor players to extract themselves from whilst not being a pushover (like flat sand bunkers are) for the better player.

All the best.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ said:

"My own idea on the amoeba looking bunkers has been that they are the result of idealizing the graceful capes and bays and tongues of the successful early architects like MacKenzie and Thomas"

I agree that Thomas and Mac realized their designs were no longer at the seaside, and settled in on an artistic, idealized version of seaside bunkers.  I further believe they felt the were improving on nature, or at least best adapting an idealized version of it for golf, knowing that there was ample reason to deviate from the seaside look when moving inland.

As to the idea that bunkers continually degraded because of draftsmen, I doubt it.  Overall talent of the gca, devotion to building in the field, the bulldozer and sand rake, as mentioned, and the "maintenance first" philosophy that pervades the biz in tougher times like now all have a part.

[Peter Pallotta]

Carl - when I saw those overheard shots, my first thought was that the amoeba shapes were meant as a short cut to (and now-formalized version of) 'randomness' -- a half-hearted nod to an era when the bad bounce and the naturalness of the grounds were both a practical reality and a philosophical underpinning. Given that there is now nothing natural or subtle or random about where the bunkers at Doral (and many other places) are placed, it's as if these wiggley shaped bunkers are meant to represent all the features/qualities that used to be quirky and unpredictable and unfair and natural on a golf course. The problem, of course, is that one look at them tells you that they are very poor representations indeed, especially with their uniform/consistent sand and neat, manicured edges. One of the reasons I'd prefer pot bunkers to the amoeba-shapes is that the former are more honest and simple, and don't pretend to offer anything more (or less) than they actually deliver.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()