[Joe Hancock]

Steve,

I don't know if having sandy soils makes the long, flanking bunker any more or less strategic. It does give a sense of belonging, which is what Max Behr and Tommy N. were alluding to. In my mind, it either is(or isn't) strategic...regardless of soils and surrounds.

The bunker that runs down the left side of #18 at Pebble Beach is there out of practicality. It is the buffer between salt water and turf. One could make a case for letting nature have its way in that area, though, and it would work just as well as a bunker, strategically.

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Like most things pertaining to golf architecture, there are all kinds of opinions and few black and white answers.  I doubt Pete Dye built all those long flanking bunkers at TPC Sawgrass, at Harbour Town or at Long Cove because he ran out of design ideas!  Then again maybe it is a crutch for him as the guy isn't very creative 😉

We could argue that every design feature is "a crutch" if it is over used.  Are trees a crutch? Are wild greens a crutch?  Are doglegs a crutch? Are "drivable" par fours a crutch"?  Are fairway bunkers a crutch?  The list goes on and on. 

[Eric Smith]

I recall Melvyn Morrow expressing a similar opinion re: the use of long bunkers as crutches upon his viewing a video that I had posted on Facebook from the eighteenth fairway at Streamsong (Blue). He was passionate (as always) in his opinion, feeling that the long swaths of sand down the length of the hole was a fail. I will always respect Melvyn for sharing his beliefs, but disagree with him here as I felt the landscape surrounding this hole (and most of the others) at the Blue and Red courses at Streamsong practically demand that sand be featured prominently in their design.

[Tim Gavrich]

Long sand bunkers ARE a crutch.  And they're boring.

Tom--

I'm imagining a long flanking bunker in the second landing area of a par five like Pebble Beach's 18th. It seems to me that that feature, by mere virtue of its size, virtually assures that all players playing the hole in three (or more) full shots will have to consider the ramifications of a shot that is going to end up even with some part of that sand, whereas if that bunker was only, say, 10 yards long, it would be much easier to play around or (perhaps more significantly) avoid by accident. I'm obviously discounting movement of the land, which can have a significant effect on things.

Similarly, off the tee of a par 4 or 5, I would think if an architect wants to make sure most/all players will be concerned about a bunker, that bunker should probably err on the side of being longer, in order to account for the fairly wide range of distances people achieve off the tee (even from different tee yardages).

[Sven Nilsen]

Are they a crutch on 6, 7, 10 and 11 at Bandon Trails?

Seems to me that they work very well as areas to be avoided, and when combined in tandem staggered on opposite sides of the fairway, they provide a bit of a strategic element, as the further you bail out from one the more you may be faced with a carry over the second (7 and 10, in this case).

At Trails, the bunkers don't look at out of place, and perhaps that is the question here.

Sven

[John Kavanaugh]

How can the fact that all 18 holes at Pinehurst #2 have flanking bunkers the entire length of both sides of every hole be anything but repetitive?  Boring is up to the individual.  I personally found that the simplicity of it all focused you to hit every tee shot exactly the same, boring off the tee.  I guess that was what they were going for considering the excellence of the greens.  Has anyone ever described a tee shot at Pinehurst #2 except when Mike Davis has the pros tee off from the start of the fairways?

[Emile Bonfiglio]

This hole cannot be considered boring

[Mark_Fine]

John,
You could say the same about Pine Valley as you are saying about Pinehurst #2.  It is how they are used and the fact that they just bleed into the natural landscape.  I never felt claustrophobic at #2 on the tee shots because of the flanking sand.  You might be forsed to shape shots but there is room to play golf.  Pine Valley is the same off the tee although there is more fear knowing the consequences of a wayward tee shot are much worse.  

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
You could say the same about Pine Valley as you are saying about Pinehurst #2.  It is how they are used.  I never felt claustrophobic at #2 on the tee shots because of the flanking sand.  You might be forsed to shape shots but there is room to play golf.  Pine Valley is the same off the tee although there is more fear knowing the consequences of a wayward tee shot are much worse. 

Boredom could be defined as constant state of unchanged emotion. 

[Tommy Naccarato]

Long sand bunkers ARE a crutch.  And they're boring.

Also, Hell's Half Acre is actually almost an acre and a half.  It is 400 feet to carry by 150 wide.

Thank you......

[jeffwarne]

This hole cannot be considered boring

there is something disconcerting about a perfectly raked bunker with symetrical strips of "native" surrounded by a perfect ring of maintained bluegrass

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You don't mean to say that many of those long sand features at Streamsong should be grassed over and/or broken up do you? 

Jeff,
If you knew the history behind that bunker at Oakmont, you might think differently about it   Is it "asthetically pleasing", that is surely debatable.  But that is one of the greatest aspects of golf -  all the playing fields are unique.   

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
You don't mean to say that many of those long sand features at Streamsong should be grassed over and/or broken up do you? 

Jeff,
If you knew the history behind that bunker at Oakmont, you might think differently about it   Is it "asthetically pleasing", that is surely debatable.  But that is one of the greatest aspects of golf -  all the playing fields are unique.   

Agreed.Criticizing Church pews is evidently irreverent.

[Stephen Davis]

Joe,

Now that I understand that you are talking about flanking bunkers, two big examples that come to mind are the Church Pew bunkers at Oakmont (thanks Emile for that great picture) and interestingly enough the hole that precedes the one that made you start this thread. The 4th hole at Chamber's Bay has one of the longest bunkers that I can think of. It plays into every shot you make on that hole, and rightly so, as someone who has been in there I can tell you you want no part of that bunker. Chamber's Bay has many of these types of bunkers, many are done very well, some are not, but I don't think that the majority of them can be called crutches. For the most part they make for a very interesting golfing experience.

[Carl Rogers]

Long sand bunkers ARE a crutch.  And they're boring.
Also, Hell's Half Acre is actually almost an acre and a half.  It is 400 feet to carry by 150 wide.

Well Tom, at Riverfront, the driving zone cross bunker at hole 9 has got to be close to 50 yards long.  I like it.  There is one on hole 8 too but is not as long.

I think that to use a cross bunker effectively, it would have to be pretty long.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Long sand bunkers ARE a crutch.  And they're boring.
Also, Hell's Half Acre is actually almost an acre and a half.  It is 400 feet to carry by 150 wide.

Well Tom, at Riverfront, the driving zone cross bunker at hole 9 has got to be close to 50 yards long.  I like it.  There is one on hole 8 too but is not as long.

I think that to use a cross bunker effectively, it would have to be pretty long.

Mountain Ridge's, NGLA's, GCGC's and Plainfield's cross bunkers aren't long at all.

"Placement" is a critical factor.

[Carl Rogers]

Long sand bunkers ARE a crutch.  And they're boring.
Also, Hell's Half Acre is actually almost an acre and a half.  It is 400 feet to carry by 150 wide.

Well Tom, at Riverfront, the driving zone cross bunker at hole 9 has got to be close to 50 yards long.  I like it.  There is one on hole 8 too but is not as long.

I think that to use a cross bunker effectively, it would have to be pretty long.

Mountain Ridge's, NGLA's, GCGC's and Plainfield's cross bunkers aren't long at all.

"Placement" is a critical factor.

they both work effectively, i was just wondering about Tom's statement

[Tom_Doak]

Tom--

I'm imagining a long flanking bunker in the second landing area of a par five like Pebble Beach's 18th. It seems to me that that feature, by mere virtue of its size, virtually assures that all players playing the hole in three (or more) full shots will have to consider the ramifications of a shot that is going to end up even with some part of that sand, whereas if that bunker was only, say, 10 yards long, it would be much easier to play around or (perhaps more significantly) avoid by accident. I'm obviously discounting movement of the land, which can have a significant effect on things.

Similarly, off the tee of a par 4 or 5, I would think if an architect wants to make sure most/all players will be concerned about a bunker, that bunker should probably err on the side of being longer, in order to account for the fairly wide range of distances people achieve off the tee (even from different tee yardages).

The highlighted passages are exactly why we disagree. 

To me, if the architect is drawing out one hazard to insist that every player deal with it, he is being lazy and not thinking hard enough about where to place a hazard that will provide the most interest to the most players.  Also, long, flat sand isn't much of a real hazard for good players if there is no face they have to get up over.

Most of the long "sand features" parallel to the fairways at Streamsong are not bunkers, they are just the margins of the course where we stopped growing grass.  You've got to stop somewhere, right?  The native soil is sand, and we are killing the weeds in the sand to make the course more playable.  I don't consider that a bunker.  There ARE lots of big bunkers at Streamsong (Blue), but they jut into play in particular spots for a reason.

[Tom_Doak]

Well Tom, at Riverfront, the driving zone cross bunker at hole 9 has got to be close to 50 yards long.  I like it.  There is one on hole 8 too but is not as long.

Carl:

That bunker on the 9th at Riverfront was built mostly to keep golfers from trying to cut the corner of the dogleg and winding up in the lots to the right of the hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think we are mostly in agreement about long flanking hazards, however, are you sure you meant what you said with this quote below because this quote I don't necessarily agree with:

"To me, if the architect is drawing out one hazard to insist that every player deal with it, he is being lazy and not thinking hard enough about where to place a hazard that will provide the most interest to the most players."

That quote seems to contradict itself? If one hazard forces every player to deal with it, isn't it then by definition providing interest to the most players?  

Take the Road Hole bunker or the center of the green bunker on #6 at Riviera as examples; the architect is drawing out those single hazards and making all players deal with them.  I think they work pretty well and I wouldn't call the architect lazy.  

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

I would counter your point by adding that long hazards not only make all golfers deal with them, but lesser golfers likely will deal with them multiple times. That isn't fun golf.

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
But the same could be said about flanking water, or flanking trees, or flanking native area, or flanking rough, or flanking OB, or flanking anything!  Flanking is fine, just don't flank the same thing over and over again!  Mix it up

[Tom_Doak]

"To me, if the architect is drawing out one hazard to insist that every player deal with it, he is being lazy and not thinking hard enough about where to place a hazard that will provide the most interest to the most players."

That quote seems to contradict itself? If one hazard forces every player to deal with it, isn't it then by definition providing interest to the most players?  

Take the Road Hole bunker or the center of the green bunker on #6 at Riviera as examples; the architect is drawing out those single hazards and making all players deal with them.  I think they work pretty well and I wouldn't call the architect lazy.  

Mark:

You are not understanding what I was trying to say.

When I talked about a "drawn out" hazard I meant the ones that are 50 or 100 yards long ... not the Road bunker.

Having a 100-yard bunker along the right side of a landing area IS in play for everyone, but that does not provide INTEREST for most players, it just provides an automatic PENALTY for them if they miss right.  Making everyone approach a hole the same way is not interesting. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I figured that was what you meant and I am mostly in agreement with you.  But then again, see my comment above to Joe about flanking anything!  What is the difference between a 100 yard flanking bunker and 100 yards of OB other than the fact that you can recover from the bunker 

Everything in moderation

[Mark_Fine]

What about desert courses?  Other than holes that run parallel to one another, desert courses are going to have A LOT of long flanking sand hazards often on both sides of the hole corridors.  They will certainly be broken up at times by formal bunkers and mounding and hollows and water and rough but eventually there will be desert (just like at Streamsong, eventually on the sides there will be sand).  You can't grass everything!

Commenting further about long hazards, one of my favorite OB holes is at Talking Stick.  I think it is the #2 hole on the South.  The left side of the hole is a barbed wire fence as straight as an arrow the entire length of the hole from tee to green.  It is stark and everything left of that fence is OB and desert.  The right side is "wide open" with plenty of room to avoid the OB.  But as you approach the green you realize you really don't want to be off on the right.  You want to be as close to that fence as you dare get.  It is a brilliant strategic hole and I give C&C a ton of credit for its design simplicity yet complexity.  

Frankly the hole would work pretty much the same if the left side were a straight line of trees or water or to some extent a long bunker but the bunker would actually lessen the strategic value of the hole because a good player wouldn't mind the sand as much for a shot pulled left.  Sometimes forcing every player to deal with a long hazard can be quite fun and interesting.  Again, if every other hole were like this it would get old fast but long hazards (boundary holes) can have lots of merit and we see them all the time in different variations.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()