Fairway Bunkers For Mediocre Golfers - Good Architecture?

[Jim_Coleman]

   There are many examples of fairway bunkers which are virtually irrelevant to a low handicapper, but are right in the wheelhouse of a mediocre golfer. The bunker on #10 at Augusta comes to mind.  How many times does it come into play at the Masters?  I can't think of any.  But I'll bet second shots of 20 handicappers find it a lot.  Ross has many cross bunkers 100-150 yards off the tee.  I'm pretty sure he actually stated they were for topped shots.  And what is an architect to do if he is asked to restore a Flynn course to original intent, and concludes the Flynn placed a fairway bunker 200 yards off a tee - again, irrelevant now to the good player, but well withing striking distance for the high handicapper.
   I think these are badly designed bunkers.  Punish the good player for a wayward shot.  The less talented player is punished enough by the way he plays.  And bunkers for pretty blimp shots have no place in the game, IMHO.

[Jason Topp]

Tillinghast would have agreed with you - at least when he was covering up bunkers in the 30's when no courses were being built.


I disagree.  When I was a kid there was a pond in front of the first tee that was irrelevant for anyone who could get the ball in the air and carry it 100 yards.  For me it was a thrilling decision - do I hit it over the water or play around it?  My approach depended quite a bit on how many people were watching me tee off and my supply of balls that day. 


I think decisions like this are the essence of good golf and should be presented to all levels of player.

[Jim Hoak]

They're generally better than trees and lakes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I 100% think some bunkers should be in play for shorter hitters. I despise the attitude (prevalent amongst more architects than you would think) that says all bunkers should be 260 to 310 off the tee.


Therefore I will place bunkers at 200, at 360 on par 5’s, 40 yards short of a green and wherever suits both the land and some form of strategy.


Old top shot bunkers are a little different - they are straight penal carries (although I’ll even consider one of them a round). Just because you are placing bunkers for short hitters doesn’t mean they can’t have a huge strategic impact. You’ve got to give these folks some interest. And you’ve got to mix it up.

[Thomas Dai]

One of the fine aspects of many links courses, more so I would suggest than most inland courses, is how when the wind changes direction different bunkers come into play for differing levels of player.
For example, a bunker that may be out of reach for a mediocre playing hitting into the wind may be easily reachable for the same player when hitting downwind and vice versa.
Of course there are loads and loads and loads of other factors to consider including the old chestnut of whether bunkers on the left or the right of the fairway are more/less likely to effect the mediocre/other level of player!
atb

[Sean_A]

I am in Ally's camp.  If fairway bunkers are important than they are so for most golfers.  The issue is how many and placement?  All golfers want a thrill now and again.  Some forward bunkers, if done well, can provide great thrills with visual intimidation without pressing the skill buttons too hard. 


It must be remembered that nearly all fairway bunkers impact 20 cappers more than scratch players because 20 cappers hit many more poor shots.  Its a bit silly to even think about bunkers for different class of players and I believe this sort of approach has led to many more bunkers being created than is desirable...which is really one of the hallmarks of modern championship golf...even if courses rarely host the best players or even good players that are no hopers as far as making it as a touring pro.


Its rough on archies to create interest and appropriate challenge for nearly all class of players in a single package.  The modern ideal seems to be build more tees...which obviously hasn't worked unless cartball golf is the ideal of the future. I think Keiser was right when he pursued the approach of targeting a market sector rather than trying to build courses "suitable" for all golfers.


Ciao 

[Niall C]

Jim

I think you're on the wrong track by talking about punishment. To me its about interest and challenge, particularly on a course with repeat plays. Perhaps on a Mammoth Dunes or a Castle Stuart in this country they would be bad bunkers for the un-initiated but for a members course they would be vital I'd suggest. I think that holds true no matter how good the player is.

Of course it depends on the challenge they present. Large cross-bunkers that pretty well demand an enforced carry aren't as good as a more discrete bunker right in the landing area that you have to work round. Not sure that applys to the Augusta bunkers you refer to as I'm still waiting for an invite to play the course.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts, good thread.
I don't understand how you can have a risk-reward choice, or a skill-testing risk-reward shot, or the spine-tingling pleasure of a well-earned reward after taking on a risk if you don't have a 'risk' in the first place. So to me it's pretty clear: if you want as many choices and shot-tests and thrills as possible in a round of golf, the more genuine/real risks there are the better. (I'll leave it to others to play the game in 'safe mode'.)
After all, what's the downside? It's not like we're taking on the risk of dying, after all, or of financial ruin or of a public flogging in the town square -- it's just the risk of landing in some sand, and maybe adding a stroke to your score. And if *that* penalty has become too much of a drag for the average retail/resort golfer, then I really do worry about the future of the game and of quality gca. I mean, what's next: 8 sets of tees and 200 yard wide fairways?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:


Let me ask, do you love the courses built by RTJ and Dick Wilson in the 50's and 60's?  Because this was their philosophy:  keep it moving for the short hitter, he doesn't need added challenge. It still infects the mind of many a low-handicap green chairman who moves the bunkers to places of interest to himself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Funny how 20 years can change some minds.  While this place soldiers on nearly unchanged, the real golf courses in America (not elite) have morphed from "let's win an award" to "OMG, let's try to stay open in a tough market".


These days, I do a lot of sand bunker reduction work. Not fun, but golf course owners are having the same "Come to Jesus" reckoning as Tillie had in the 1930's.  From my POV, fewer are concerned with aesthetics and architecture, more are concerned with lowering maintenance costs and speeding play.


So called "Fore" FW Sand bunkers are among the first to come out.  Sand bunkers that are over 180 yards from the long hole greens come out, because (as Tillie and Mac figured out in the 1930's) why punish a guy who can't reach the green with his second (or third on a par 5) anyway?  He did it himself with his pop up tee shot.  Let's call it the original minimalism.



I often get instructions to remove bunkers that "don't see enough "business"" and those that see "too much business."  The definitions of those two terms varies, but fw bunkers very short off the tee certainly qualify as at least "the wrong kind of business."  Maybe its like opening an adult oriented business near Disney World or something.  


I will say I have argued to keep a few, but rarely win.  They need to have a second purpose like directing the way, perhaps like those shorties at Shinny's hole 10.   But, usually, I lose.  If you look at the dynamics of a site visit after the owner has contacted you asking to remove some percentage of sand bunkers (usually 10-25%) and you try to assign some value to each to figure out which are the least valuable, it doesn't take long to come to a few conclusions.  BTW, sand bunkers behind greens are usually pretty low value on the "not enough business" scale.

[Peter Pallotta]

Always good posts, Jeff.
I don't know, of course, but it sure feels to me like those owners are making a mistake.
Yes, in the short term costs will go down and they'll save money maintaining less bunkers etc; but in the long run I don't think they'll retain current/add new revenues (ie more golfers playing more rounds) by filling in bunkers.
The whole world these days seems brimming with folks tired of & angry about what they called the "watered down": watered-down conservatism or watered-down Christianity or watered-down patriotism etc etc.
Uggh.
For me, the only things I don't want watered-down are my bourbon and my golf courses!   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,


I’ve just completely rebunkered Strandhill, reducing the overall number from 63 to 48 whilst throwing bunkers in at all sorts of distances from the tee and green. The members have told me the course is playing one shot harder for them. And at the other end of the scale, the Connaught Seniors Championship was just lost by the leader finding a fairway bunker at 315 off the tee at 18.


I think I’ve achieved exactly what I set out to without resorting to the idea of leaving out bunkers at unusual distances and positions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


Sounds like a neat project and total redesign does offer more options than a call to simply reduce bunkers. 


I understand this thread may have been assumed to be about not just putting bunkers RTJ style at whatever tee shot distance pros or low ams play, 250 back then, 290 ish now.  And, I am a big fan of designing courses for every day play of the rest of us, instead of the 1% of longest hitters who need bunkers at the 300 range to affect strategy.   For as few golfers that hit it that far, narrower or more contoured, rumpled fw seem to be the best cost/value ratio and probably penalize better players more. I am trending towards putting the bunkers where the next wave needs to consider them, from 260 back.


The good news is, depending on tee organization, a carry bunker for one group might be a good flanking bunker for others, etc.  There is still some room for variety, and creative designers will create it.

[mike_malone]

I would be fine with no fairway bunkers on a parkland course since they don’t occur naturally. But if we must have them I prefer Flynn’s idea that they create a mode of play rather than be a penalizer.


 Since he wanted to place them where the land dictates they stand the test of time. They don’t need to be moved because they weren’t put there initially to punish.


All levels of golfers hit into his bunkers but one is more likely to be attempting to hit near or over a Flynn bunker and thus accepts the consequences. Hitting into bunkers on a parkland course which are just there to punish generally isn’t my cup of tea.


I played with a six handicapper today who hit into the bunkers you hate.

[Thomas Dai]

Funny how 20 years can change some minds.  While this place soldiers on nearly unchanged, the real golf courses in America (not elite) have morphed from "let's win an award" to "OMG, let's try to stay open in a tough market".

Some nicely succinct words from Jeff.
It’s always interesting to ponder and debate the various creative aspects of courses but without hard cash to pay the bills coming through the front gate, whether it be from members, visitors, pay-n-play or whatever, the future is likely to be rather limited and looking after bunkers usually makes up a significant component of maintenance costs.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Funny how 20 years can change some minds.  While this place soldiers on nearly unchanged, the real golf courses in America (not elite) have morphed from "let's win an award" to "OMG, let's try to stay open in a tough market".

Some nicely succinct words from Jeff.
It’s always interesting to ponder and debate the various creative aspects of courses but without hard cash to pay the bills coming through the front gate, whether it be from members, visitors, pay-n-play or whatever, the future is likely to be rather limited and looking after bunkers usually makes up a significant component of maintenance costs.
Atb

The economics of the situation wasn't raised in the original question.  The question was merely about architecture.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

Tom:  No, I don't like the Jones/Wilson courses with bunkers out 260 on the right and 280 on the left.  They are boring and uninspiring.  But I wouldn't like them any more if there were another set of bunkers at 160 and 180.  They would be boring and stupid, which is worse.   I believe that, for the most part, bunkers are there to punish.  They have the added benefit that they can be beautiful and visually intimidating.  I also believe that a great course cannot be great unless it challenges good players.  By definition, if a course challenges a good player, it will challenge an average player.  Lesser players all want to play great courses.  But I see no point in placing a bunker that only challenges the weak player, unless it happens to be visually inspiring.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


Hey, "good design" is a matter of opinion and relative importance of various issues.  RTJ and Wilson thought their designs were perfect and beyond question because of their perspective of trying to design tournament courses.  Doak's is in trying to be different.  The typical course owner is in trying to stay afloat.  IMHO, any of those viewpoints can and should be discussed here.  Sorry if I offended the tree house by mentioning that the perspective here hasn't changed one iota in the 20 years I have been on it, but not sorry to offer a different perspective.


On the other hand, I recall the best defense every offered for bunkers at all distances.  My old boss was presenting a master plan, laden with bunkers at 240 yards (this was the late 70's) explaining that "other distances don't come into play."  An older member stood up and said, "I pay just as much dues as the club champ.  Don't I deserve to hit in a few bunkers, too?"

[Ira Fishman]

My roommate in college, and still very good friend 40 years later, told me back then that I was the best at something because I was the most mediocre of the mediocre. In reality, I am better than mediocre at a few things. But I absolutely am a Mediocre golfer. And I like the periodic bunker designed for us. I sure am going to remember avoiding, carrying, or escaping it more than the normal quota of close but not holed putts or chips ending up 15 feet off line. We mediocre golfers need to get our adrenaline rush somehow. No, that logic does not apply to long forced carries over water or rough—after all, our mediocrity does impose some limits.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - I'm almost certain you're aware of/read it before, but there's a wonderful essay from the golden age by Bernard Darwin, on the subject of the Tiger (scratch golfer) vs the Rabbit (average golfer).  In short, Darwin admonishes architects to design courses where the Rabbit, within the confines and limitations of his Rabbit-ness, still gets his thrills and moments of accomplishment.  Rabbits, Darwin says, we know that we are, but we don't want the architect to overtly *treat us* as Rabbits, or worse, to so clearly pity and pander to us.
Alas, me thinks that the Rabbits of the golden age were made of sturdier stuff than their modern-day counterparts.
P     

[Ira Fishman]

Peter, I did not know about Darwin’s essay so thank you—I will have to dig up a copy. I wonder if Darwin’s construct inspired Isaiah Berlin’s Hedgehog and Fox construct. In any event, there are many more rabbits than foxes in golf so I agree that designing to give us an occasional thrill is good design philosophy.


Ira

[Adam Clayman]

Bunkers placed? Shouldn't the landforms dictate where a bunker would be best created? Then it's where the teeing ground is placed, that would make the hazard meaningful, or less, to the differing classes of abilities.


 The dichotomy of removing bunkers that might create heroic shot making, versus keeping containment bunkers to speed play, is a strategy that has gauranteed the OMG, how are we going to survive, fears.


 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,


Architects route the courses.  Tees are place well before bunkers, but there have been a few cases in my designs where a tee was placed in relation to a great bunker site.


After that, yes we look for gentle upslopes facing the golfer to place sand bunkers where they will be visible (or holes that look like bunkers, accepting some blindness if it has other merits).

But several sand bunkers over the years have been built on flat ground by brining in fill for the backing mounds, so short version, fw sand bunkers are not limited strictly to only where landforms exist.

I rarely, if ever, put a sand bunker on a reverse slope, because its just too much fill on the back to look natural.   I have seen some architects that do.


I gave some thought to "heroic carry bunkers" last night. As a decidedly average golfer, I do like them, but not if it is really "do or die."  When I played Royal Melbourne years back, it was exciting to carry those angled bunkers, but I knew I was clearing them by a good bit because they were old, placed for then distances, but now very short.


As to your theory that the bunker removal reduces the game's appeal, I would love to see some study to back that up.  While golfers do play courses they like, design generally ranks pretty low on most surveys, well below maintenance.  And, golfers usually rate the modern courses as more attractive than older ones, so go figure.


As Pete Dye once said, the popularity of Pinehurst is that no one loses a golf ball without water hazards and with pine straw off the fairways.  I guess with CC reintroducing the gunch, that might be a good comparison to see if golfers appreciate classic design that cost them strokes and golf balls.  I figure the first year or so, it was full to see the changes.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Faz and other courses there gained some popularity thereafter.  After all, this is the facility that got rid of my favorite look - overseeded fw and dormant rough, because the customers demanded wall to wall green.

[Tim Martin]

   There are many examples of fairway bunkers which are virtually irrelevant to a low handicapper, but are right in the wheelhouse of a mediocre golfer. The bunker on #10 at Augusta comes to mind.  How many times does it come into play at the Masters?  I can't think of any.  But I'll bet second shots of 20 handicappers find it a lot.  Ross has many cross bunkers 100-150 yards off the tee.  I'm pretty sure he actually stated they were for topped shots.  And what is an architect to do if he is asked to restore a Flynn course to original intent, and concludes the Flynn placed a fairway bunker 200 yards off a tee - again, irrelevant now to the good player, but well withing striking distance for the high handicapper.
   I think these are badly designed bunkers.  Punish the good player for a wayward shot.  The less talented player is punished enough by the way he plays.  And bunkers for pretty blimp shots have no place in the game, IMHO.

Jim-Emmet liked to use the topped shot bunkers also. The outward nine at Keney Park in Hartford, Connecticut had a couple reinstalled as part of the restoration project recently completed. My understanding is that the original intent was to prevent a topped tee shot from running forever on baked out fairways and as a result the player not getting a pass on a bad shot. Your eye definitely picks them up off the tee so it’s a bit of visual intimidation as well. With modern irrigation you wouldn’t get the runout the ODG’s we’re trying to prevent on many courses today but they still rob you of distance and force you to play from the bunker.

[Jeff_Brauer]

So, top shot bunkers are a good example of how design changes constantly to utilize or account for technology.  There are others.  For instance, PVC pipe (vs. concrete) made it easier to install more drainage.  Irrigation made it possible to build in many climates.


Even club and ball improvements probably contributed to the demise of top shot bunkers, as the carry was no longer as fearsome.  For that matter, the golden age guys tried hard to get away from the symmetry of earlier designs and certainly 2 top shot bunkers evenly spaced across the fw was often symmetrical.  Looking at some old Ross plans, he did have some short bunkers, but I have never checked to see if that was earlier in his career, and they gradually gave way.  But, I suspect it is.  Others would know better for many of the GA architects. 


Add in Mac's advice about not forcing golfers to pile up a big score, and top shot bunkers were an idea whose time had come and gone.  Also a good example of form following function in design.  There shouldn't be too many examples of modern architects using these (other than a purposeful retro course). They really don't fit the game any more.