[Tommy Williamsen]

We need to step up our game. Since the departure of Pat Mucci we have had far fewer threads that actually are about golf architecture. I'll start.


I love good bunkering. I belonged to a Steve Smyers club that had some great bunkering on about half the holes. They were deep and well placed especially off the tee. The first time I played the course I didn't think that many were in play. The more I played the course the more I realized they were in play and found myself in them more until I had played the course a few dozen times where I figured out what to do. A couple were cross bunkers and the rest were well placed down the sides of the fairways. Most of the bunkers didn't infringe on the fairways but were along side of the fairways. There was a good combination of bunkers left and right. On doglegs most were on the inside of the the dogleg.


What do you look for in fairway bunkers? How many holes should have them off the tee? Do you like cross bunkers where you have to carry them or hit short of them?

[JESII]

Happy New Year Tommy!




I agree that the number of substantive threads is much lower without Patrick...




Personally, I would like fairway bunkers to make an impact on your decision making by costing you something if you've found one. They can be small (so easier to avoid) and there doesn't need to be many...but they should really impact your next shot if you find one.


Gil Hanse put a tiny little one in the layup area on #16 at Applebrook that I simply cannot avoid. The fairway at this point is maybe 60 yards wide but once you put a 10 foot circle of death about exactly where you'd want to hit it...

[Jim Tang]

David Esler did a fantastic job with the fairway bunkering at Black Sheep. 


The fairways at Black Sheep are extremely wide on most holes.  In some cases, they are hard to miss.  However, if a player wants the optimum line of play into a green, he usually needs to challenge a fairway bunker to get the best angle.  If the player wants a more conservative line off the tee and play away from the fairway bunker, that option exists.  But, they will be left with a longer shot into the green or perhaps don't have as good a look at the green.


Fairway bunkers should dictate choices off the tee, or, the second shot on par 5's.



I am not a fan of cross bunkers that force a player to lay up with no other option.

[JJShanley]

My home course (a C&C) has just one bunker that challenges the carry: the opening hole.  I don't have to worry about it, given that sits outside my range with driver.


Depending on how you far you can hit driver, as many as ten holes have flanking bunkers.  I wondered about the efficacy of these until I played OFCC-South in October 2016.  My host (an excellent, former varsity golfer) helped me understand quite how these come into play on that course, which has helped me understand the strategy of my own course.  For the most part, the tee shot involves a decision about how close you want to get to the bunker to give you a better approach to the green.


7 asks you to consider if you can hit a draw into a narrow corridor.  (N.B.: we now have bunkers beyond the single bunker displayed in that diagram.)  My typical tee shot will run out short of the bunkers.  If I somehow hit a draw I'm golden.


Two holes have bunkers that might fool you: 12 and 16.  I find each approach much easier from the other side of the fairway. 


12 asks you to take on the OB to the right; if you hit left you have an awkward angle for the second that brings OB into play in a similar way to what I understand you have a WeKoPa's 2nd, although with more room between the edge of the green and the OB.


16 should leave you a wedge to a rumpled green.  Perhaps the bunkers force the hand of longer hitters who could otherwise spank one 270 to leave a pitch to the green.  If I go left I have to play a knockdown shot, from perhaps 120 out.  I'd rather hit a full wedge, so right gives me the best option.  (I also hit a fade with a driver.)


I may, of course, have gotten this all wrong.  Perhaps left offers an easier shot for folk who can reliably hit a draw.  I wouldn't know.


I wonder if carry bunkers pose maintenance issues.  You simply mow beside a bunker on the flank, rather go around a centerline.  That said, I find the carry bunker fun, especially on links courses.  Conversely, I find missing the carry a punch to the gut.  I suppose I enjoy the seconds of following the ball through the air, trying to project the trajectory.


Theory for consideration: Carry bunkers (distinct from their centerline counterparts, perhaps) offer the golfer an easier shot in terms of a shorter club for the approach if carried from the tee.  The flanking bunker (appropriately placed, not 15 yards into the rough) offers an easier line from which to approach the green.


And +1 for Pat.  Sure he could say some rather incendiary things, but nothing worse than I've gotten in the comments for papers I've written for grad schools.  (The latter were deserved, I will say.)  I learned from those comments.  Which is why I post here.

[Tom_Doak]

In general I think most courses have too many fairway bunkers.  I have learned from Crystal Downs and Ballybunion that if the land is really good, and the rough between the holes is playable but extracts some sort of tax on the second shot, you hardly need bunkers, aside from the visual interest.


If you are going to have a lot of fairway bunkers, I think they should be eating into the line of play, instead of just alongside it.  These can be as different as St. Andrews or Royal Melbourne in appearance, but either way their importance is based on challenging the player to carry the corner, and punishing him if he fails.

[Ian Mackenzie]

And the amount of trolling, name-calling and rabbit-hole threads about the same 8-10 US courses have also been reduced proportionately. Ying/Yang, good/bad, etc.




When Jim Urbina did work on our course in Chicago, he shared some of his insight with many us of about FW bunkers.
He would say:


"Ian, there is a bunker out there for everybody and this one may not be for you....today." (Or close approximation.)


I agree with much of what Jim Tang says above, but also came to realize that bunkers can play other roles: visual or optical intimidation or presence just to get your mind "cluttered" a bit and thus introducing "gray" into your shot selection where there instead may have been "black or white" clarity.


Take cross bunkers.


(First, as an aside, Mucci would have taken you to task by saying something like, "So you believe that Mackenzie was incorrect in placing a cross bunker on #2 at CPC...?"....or something like that...then a rabbit-hole would have followed...;-)


Our course has one on the first hole - Par 4 of 435-455 for men. The cross bunker is only reachable for the longest (amateur) hitters and only with a tail wind and the front edge of that bunker is ~125 yards from the green. I routinely have a 150-180 shot into the green and the bunker is not in play....or is it?


The landing area is in a small depression at the bottom of a gentle grade. You get to your shot and the cross bunker stands between you and the green so that the lip of the bunker matches up with the front edge of th green and it creates the illusion that the green is floating above the bunker.


Our 3rd green has a similar effect with two large FW bunkers on left and right about 40-60 yards short of the hole. From the fairway, the appear to be greenside bunkers, but they are not. The green floats between them and there is another 50 yards of FW to negotiate before he putting surface.


(Am trying hard to post pics of both!!)





Ugh....I give up. Hope this works: https://www.flickr.com/photos/146346778@N03/31964088241/in/dateposted-public/

[Peter Pallotta]

Whether cross hazards or flanking bunkers that intrude on the line of play, it is important to me that they be placed so that only an exceptional shot will clear them, ie will get a reward for taking the risk. I have played over way too many bunkers in my life --and as my ball much too easily carries them, I always get a feeling of deflation and annoyance. I've been lied to -- there was never any real risk in the supposed risk-reward situation. The architect has pampered me, and was hoping that I would be so chuffed that I wouldn't notice. I did notice. Rough is more more honest than these kinds of dishonest hazards.

[Thomas Dai]

Firstly, sand against a green background is photogenic, as indeed is water, and photogenic sells. This aspect needs to be appreciated as does the nature of the terrain as sometimes open sand areas (bunkers) can't be avoided.


However, from the purely golfing (rather than golf advertisement) point of view isn't it preferrable to let the natural lie of the land dictate, ie let the natural lie of the land, enhanced a little if necessary by thoughtful routing, grass hollows and mounds, be the primary 'hazard' and only then if something more is deemed necessary consider fairway bunkering.


[/size]And when a bunker is installed then make it a real bunker, something to be thought provoking on the tee, something to be avoided either by skill, use of the golfing brain or an alternative route, not some ghastly flatlipped creation more suited to a childs sand pit in the local park!

Atb[/font]

[Jon Wiggett]

Interesting topic which is worth another look. For me a fairway bunker should be in the line of play for at least some players and not stuck out to the sides of the hole in the rough. Therefore it should influence or be an influence on the line of play. Not every hole needs them and most courses are IMO over bunkered.


As for Mr. Mucci, whilst it is true that there are fewer threads especially those with half written titles this discussion board certainly has a much better atmosphere and has little to no trolling since his departure. Better without him but then again I never was a fan

[BCowan]

In general I think most courses have too many fairway bunkers.  I have learned from Crystal Downs and Ballybunion that if the land is really good, and the rough between the holes is playable but extracts some sort of tax on the second shot, you hardly need bunkers, aside from the visual interest.


If you are going to have a lot of fairway bunkers, I think they should be eating into the line of play, instead of just alongside it.  These can be as different as St. Andrews or Royal Melbourne in appearance, but either way their importance is based on challenging the player to carry the corner, and punishing him if he fails.

Tom,

   Last time we talked in person at the Mashie you had not played Huntercombe.  I recall in your Anatomy book that you weren't fond of Grass Bunkers.  Has that opinion changed at all since playing Huntercombe? 

[Jason Topp]

1.  The best fairway bunkers usually protect the best angle of approach.

2.  I am generally not a big fan of carry bunkers because they rarely pose an interesting question to the golfer.  The player can either carry them or cannot carry them and adjusts accordingly.

3.  I like a wide variety of depths with fairway bunkers.  Really deep bunkers pose interesting questions on the shot to the area of the bunker and shallow ones allow for one to hit the green. 

4.  Finally, there should be some randomness to bunkers rather than a specific formula.  The best courses feel like contests with nature.  Most courses seem as if they were built with a protractor.

[Mike Bodo]

In general I think most courses have too many fairway bunkers.  I have learned from Crystal Downs and Ballybunion that if the land is really good, and the rough between the holes is playable but extracts some sort of tax on the second shot, you hardly need bunkers, aside from the visual interest.

I agree 100%! Take a course such as Oakland Hills CC, which I caddied at for several years, including the 1985 U.S. Open, which has an un-Godly amount of bunkers compared Donald Ross' original design. I'll never forget following Jack Nicklaus around the front nine during a private practice round the week before the '85 Open and him commenting on this very subject. When asked by one of the club members on no. 8 tee what he thought of the rough on the course, he responded "It's not the rough that I remember so much about this course, but the bunkers." That was telling to me and it's only gotten worse since then due to the length that players now hit their drives.

[JJShanley]

Interesting topic which is worth another look. For me a fairway bunker should be in the line of play for at least some players and not stuck out to the sides of the hole in the rough. Therefore it should influence or be an influence on the line of play. Not every hole needs them and most courses are IMO over bunkered.


As for Mr. Mucci, whilst it is true that there are fewer threads especially those with half written titles this discussion board certainly has a much better atmosphere and has little to no trolling since his departure. Better without him but then again I never was a fan

What about on the edge of the fairway, on the side with the easier approach to the green to tempt the golfer, with a clear path of mown grass that allows a ball to run out into the hazard?  I agree in principle that bunkers should not have rough all around them. 

[JMEvensky]

Whether cross hazards or flanking bunkers that intrude on the line of play, it is important to me that they be placed so that only an exceptional shot will clear them, ie will get a reward for taking the risk. I have played over way too many bunkers in my life --and as my ball much too easily carries them, I always get a feeling of deflation and annoyance. I've been lied to -- there was never any real risk in the supposed risk-reward situation. The architect has pampered me, and was hoping that I would be so chuffed that I wouldn't notice. I did notice. Rough is more more honest than these kinds of dishonest hazards.

I don't feel cheated by carrying a bunker so much as feeling "misdirected" by purposely playing close to a flanking bunker only to realize I've gained no reward--no better angle,no shorter approach,etc. To me,that's the greater design sin.

[JJShanley]

Whether cross hazards or flanking bunkers that intrude on the line of play, it is important to me that they be placed so that only an exceptional shot will clear them, ie will get a reward for taking the risk. I have played over way too many bunkers in my life --and as my ball much too easily carries them, I always get a feeling of deflation and annoyance. I've been lied to -- there was never any real risk in the supposed risk-reward situation. The architect has pampered me, and was hoping that I would be so chuffed that I wouldn't notice. I did notice. Rough is more more honest than these kinds of dishonest hazards.

I don't feel cheated by carrying a bunker so much as feeling "misdirected" by purposely playing close to a flanking bunker only to realize I've gained no reward--no better angle,no shorter approach,etc. To me,that's the greater design sin.

I don't mind that as much you seem to if the architect has placed bunkers in such a way to deceive the player as to the most appropriate route to the hole.  "I've chased the bunkers from the tee all day, so I should continue to do so here." 


But, as you say, one should gain something from having selected the better approach to the green.  If left, right, or center offers a similar challenge, then why build a bunker?

[Mike Bodo]

Despite the gorgeous layout Whistling Straights is, I'll never forget walking the course with my brother (a former assistant pro at Indian Hill CC in Chicago) during the first round of the 2015 PGA Championship and commenting to him on multiple occasions after walking through sand box after sand box what an outrageous number of bunkers the course had. Many of which were so far removed from the fairway that I could not see them ever coming into play. Although the overall appearance may be visually appealing, it's a poor use of real estate and isn't something you would see at a classic links course in the U.K. I subscribe to the philosophy that less is more. You could remove 50% of the bunkers at Whistling Straights and have it be just as compelling and challenging course as it is now and reduce maintenance and upkeep costs in the process.

[Jon Wiggett]

Interesting topic which is worth another look. For me a fairway bunker should be in the line of play for at least some players and not stuck out to the sides of the hole in the rough. Therefore it should influence or be an influence on the line of play. Not every hole needs them and most courses are IMO over bunkered.

 

What about on the edge of the fairway, on the side with the easier approach to the green to tempt the golfer, with a clear path of mown grass that allows a ball to run out into the hazard?  I agree in principle that bunkers should not have rough all around them.

JJ,


absolutely, I can see the reason for such bunkers as they are influencing the line of play.


Jon

[Sean_A]

I mostly agree with Tom.  Fewer, but more meaningfully placed and physically harsher bunkers are what I like most. I prefer centreline, diagonal carry and cross bunkers the most. I also like the topography to feed toward bunkers.  I don't care for pinching paired bunkers in fairways or near greens, but a few hear and there is fine.  I also don't care for echelon, or layered bunkering. That is bunker lines across fairways every however many yards so that any recovery from sand/rough is constantly battling the next line of bunkers. I also don't care for cluster bunkering.  This idea of making three bunkers where one properly made and attractive bunker will do just fine is bewildering to me.  Its all about balance or some such nonsense.  Just make the one bunker bigger and better looking and its all fine.   


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

   Last time we talked in person at the Mashie you had not played Huntercombe.  I recall in your Anatomy book that you weren't fond of Grass Bunkers.  Has that opinion changed at all since playing Huntercombe?

Ben,


Actually I've still not played Huntercombe ... the day of my visit there was a society match, so I could only walk around and observe.


I have never been fond of the idea of "grass bunkers," especially when they are shaped to look like a formalized depression.  A grass bunker is really just rough, and rough is fine in its own right, it doesn't need to be over shaped.


I have seen several courses in the past few years that had cool mounding and adjacent depressions as a feature instead of bunkering ... if you liked what you saw at Huntercombe, you'd like Yelverton and Minchinhampton Old even more.  I could see building a course like that someday; in fact we started to do some of that at The Loop, but got away from it the next spring when we started back up.  But it's easier to pull it off when you've got old mine workings and quarry pits as a starting point, instead of just deciding to make them all yourself.  If you built something like Huntercombe from scratch, I think most Americans would find it very strange, and not really give it a chance to prove itself.

[Sean_A]

Ben...I too wish the use of humps n' hollows and earthworks were more prevalent.  Though I disagree with Tom that Huntercombe's hollows are merely rough.  There is a play from the hollows.  More importantly, the hollows are not road-mapped like bunkers are...they can't be seen very well at Huntercombe because of the flatish land...so its hard to be sure when laying up or being assertive.  There is always an element of doubt that simply isn't present for most bunkering...especially the flashy things that are built these days. 


The first at Minch Old is a stunning example of hollows n' mounds.  Yelverton has a few which holes which really stand out as well, but as Tom says, Fowler started with a natural depression to work with....the 16th is awesome. Of course Kington too has a few great examples. 


Another course has a few doozies...Berkhamsted's 1st is very memorable.  Also, RAF has a few doozies, but obviously man-made...not that this reduces the effect of the earthworks. 


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sometimes less is more.  Many architects also build what I call "rough" bunkers.  They are meant to be fairway bunkers but they are left out on the sides of the course and/or languishing alone surrounded by heavy rough    They do far more to penalize an already poor shot than they do to tempt and influence play.  "Fairway" bunkers should be integrated into the fairway!

[MCirba]

I'm of the belief that land forms really should dictate the amount, if any, and placement of fairway bunkers.   As I see more and more courses I'm beginning to think that Bobby Jones and Doc Mackenzie were onto something at ANGC with their "less is more" concept, which is more easily accomplished on terrific rolling land as they had at their disposal.   There, cleverly routed and conceived holes  can let the land take the ball to its due reward or appropriate punishment through rolling.

It's more difficult to get the same effect, much less something approximating of "gravity golf" on flattish or dull land unless it's extensively shaped, so a reliance on a plethora of bunkering is more understandable in that setting.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I remember hearing an interview with Bill Coore who stated that good bunkering was essential on a course. Certainly C&C have a plethora of bunkers at Sand Hills and Streamsong. I am one who thinks that most fairway bunkers should be in the fairways guarding the best line to the green. I certainly like them better than water where recovery is impossible. Six or seven holes where fairway bunkers come into play seems about right.  I'd rather play out of a bunker than spend time looking for a ball in the rough. I would like to see fairway length grass cut to the bunker's edge rather than have rough ring the bunkers.

[BCrosby]

JME says above - "I don't feel cheated by carrying a bunker so much as feeling "misdirected" by purposely playing close to a flanking bunker only to realize I've gained no reward--no better angle, no shorter approach,etc. To me,that's the greater design sin."

I think that is right. It reflects the views of MacK and many other GA architects. For them the main function (though not the only one) of fw bunkers was to serve as something like an attractive nuisance. Given the layout of the hole, they should be something you are induced to play towards if you want to make your next shot easier. A fw bunker you play away from to get the best angle for the next shot is a pretty good working definition of an nonstrategic hole.   

Carry bunkers had a central role in Victorian notions of how fw bunkers should operate on the golfer.  Hence the steeplechase courses they built. Golden Age designers built some carry fw bunkers, but they did not have an important place in their design philosophy. Hence most of their fw bunkers are placed on the flanks of holes, leaving ways around them for less aggressive or less accomplished players.

As for the number of fw bunkers, Tom Simpson and MacK would agree with TD above. Both thought people built too many of them.

Bob   

[JMEvensky]

Sometimes less is more.  Many architects also build what I call "rough" bunkers.  They are meant to be fairway bunkers but they are left out on the sides of the course and/or languishing alone surrounded by heavy rough    They do far more to penalize an already poor shot than they do to tempt and influence play.  "Fairway" bunkers should be integrated into the fairway!

Assuming this is tongue in cheek,but if not...


In my part of the world,"rough" bunkers are the result of re-grassing from Bermuda to zoysia. For various reasons,narrower than designed fairways got codified and now it's difficult to go back. It's not a design issue,it's a maintenance issue (but I'm guessing you already knew this).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()