[Sean_A]

Sean,
The horse left that barn a long time ago at Augusta National.  Your answer I am afraid is politically correct on this site but a cop out.  The hole there today is what it is.  We would be watching it played right now if it weren’t for this pandemic.  Do you like it the way it is and if not what would you do to improve it?  If Ben Crenshaw recommended putting a bunker complex there would that make you feel better about it?  I know if Tom Fazio suggested it, you wouldn’t like it.  Tom Doak said there was never a bunker there to begin with so maybe it makes no sense to add one and the area should just be nice and open as it once was.  RTJ Sr didn’t think so and added goofy moguls.  Then again, maybe the new pine trees clogging up the landing area and blocking the panoramic views are just fine.  Leave it as is 

Mark


Not a cop out at all.  On the contrary, I think what has been done to the course over time is a cop out.  I believe if a good archie kept original plans AND kept modern day Masters in mind, he/she could come up with something at least equally as intriguing and challenging as what currently exists and more in keeping with the original ideas.


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
So basically no comment which is fine.  Let me know when your pipe dream happens?  In the meantime I look forward to watching the pros pitch out from under the trees on the right (hopefully in November) 😛

[Ira Fishman]

If the right answer to every question on this site is TOC, the wrong distraction is ANGC.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, why do courses want bunkers removed? I'll bet that most of the time it isn't about playability but about economics. Bunkers cost a lot of money to maintain. T[size=78%]hey tend to wash out after a downpour, need to be edged (even ragged edged bunkers need some edging), and raked. For twelve years I belonged to F[/size][size=78%]our Streams, a Steve Smyers course outside DC. Smyers is not shy about the use of bunkers. To be sure there was some grumbling about some of the bunkers but I can't think of any bunkers I wasn't in at sometime. [/size]

Absolutely it is to save money in maintenance, although from time to time I get asked to remove a bunker that just sees "too much action", i.e. punishes usually poor players and slows play.  I would think a cavernous fw bunker would fit that description.  They also take me around and show me bunkers where few balls ever land, and ask that those be taken out.  I have never quite hit on what exactly the balance between "too much use" and "too little use" is, and it does vary from course to course.


I used Google aerials to check one of Steve's recent course, here in DFW.  Down to about 70 bunkers, so I think he may have gotten the same epiphany that I have.  Even Mac got religion in the depression, and Tillie spend a decade taking out the duffers headaches everywhere across the country, so the philosophy of correcting the excess of a thriving economic decade isn't new.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
So basically no comment which is fine.  Let me know when your pipe dream happens?  In the meantime I look forward to watching the pros pitch out from under the trees on the right (hopefully in November)

Here's toasting your pipe dream 😉

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, you have been pretty outspoken about the overuse of bunkers. How do you determine what is an appropriate use of them. Are Woodhall Spa and Ganton over bunkered? Beau Desert? Cavendish? RND would seem ok.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a great thread; thanks to all for the contributions; it's especially interesting to read what Jeff and Tom have to say on this.

I've thought about this very question quite a bit because of the particular course that I play, which features extremely penal fairway bunkers on virtually every hole.  So here are some things about which I'm willing to be told I'm wrong.

1. The depth of a fairway bunker should, more or less, vary inversely with the distance from the green.  Being in a fairway bunker 190 out and having to hit a wedge just seems to me to take a lot of fun and thought out of the game.

2. The depth of a fairway bunker should, more or less, vary directly with the risk-reward possibilities that the bunker creates.  I'm ok with a very tough fairway bunker that guards the inside of a dogleg IF there is a high level of reward for successfully carrying it AND if there is plenty or room to play away from the bunker.

3. The depth of a fairway bunker is only one part of the equation; the other part is the degree of slope and the room to take a stance.  Again, if I find myself in a fairway bunker and, because I don't really have a decent stance can only hit a wedge, a lot of fun and thought go out of the game.

4. Above all, I like Tom Doak's premise that there should be no formulas in this.  I'd be ok with the absurdly difficult fairway bunker on #11 at my course if I hadn't just played 9 and 10 with equally absurdly difficult fairway bunkers, all well over 150 yds from the front of the green.

[Thomas Dai]

Variety is the spice of life as the saying goes.
Severe penalties can put some folks off the game entirely, which is why shot options, usually via width are important. And in this respect a really deep bunker is no different to a forced carry for a short hitter or a lessor player etc.
In saying this however, why seemingly do some players these days expect, yes expect, to be able to play attacking green-seeking shots from fairway bunkers? They were dumb enough to hit it there, take the medicine or be sufficiently savvy to take the medicine beforehand.
Laying-up used to be a key skill within the game - seeking the right angles, seeking a flat lie, just close enough to a hazard but not close - course management - the use of Bobby Jones’ famous “5 1/2 inches between the ears”.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

This is a great thread; thanks to all for the contributions; it's especially interesting to read what Jeff and Tom have to say on this.

I've thought about this very question quite a bit because of the particular course that I play, which features extremely penal fairway bunkers on virtually every hole.  So here are some things about which I'm willing to be told I'm wrong.

1. The depth of a fairway bunker should, more or less, vary inversely with the distance from the green.  Being in a fairway bunker 190 out and having to hit a wedge just seems to me to take a lot of fun and thought out of the game.

2. The depth of a fairway bunker should, more or less, vary directly with the risk-reward possibilities that the bunker creates.  I'm ok with a very tough fairway bunker that guards the inside of a dogleg IF there is a high level of reward for successfully carrying it AND if there is plenty or room to play away from the bunker.

3. The depth of a fairway bunker is only one part of the equation; the other part is the degree of slope and the room to take a stance.  Again, if I find myself in a fairway bunker and, because I don't really have a decent stance can only hit a wedge, a lot of fun and thought go out of the game.

4. Above all, I like Tom Doak's premise that there should be no formulas in this.  I'd be ok with the absurdly difficult fairway bunker on #11 at my course if I hadn't just played 9 and 10 with equally absurdly difficult fairway bunkers, all well over 150 yds from the front of the green.

But your whole post is in fact a rough formula, based on proportionality.  Tom's tag line used to read something like "getting the paradox of proportionality right is the crux of design" (should probably go look it up, rather than guess.)


And basically, I agree in general with your basic premises, and would design most bunkers under those guidelines, reserving the right to violate the guidelines either out of necessity or whimsy.  Tom's POV is so strong against formulas that he refuses to admit them outright, fearing architects might always be too bound to guidelines. I have never believed that stating a basic guideline prohibits me from thinking out of the box every so often (but believing too often must makes for goofy golf)

I find it hard to believe that golfers and even golf course architects don't form some expectations as to what constitutes good design.  But I think they also form expectations as to always be on the lookout for something different, since some of the thrill is the variety of the playing fields.

Yes, a deep bunker makes more sense when reward is greater, and it seems to me that would ideally be later in the round and on a par 5, where the carry is most likely to reward you with a stroke below par.  Or a short 4 where you shouldn't screw up, with options to lay up, play wide, etc.  Possibly on a long 4, but only if given really wide girth to get around it.   Etc.


Deep bunkers on every hole would be as bad as water on every hole.  Maybe worse, because they didn't have to be that way, someone decided they would be that way.  But, when part of the attraction of golf is different playing fields, and there is no real severe penalty, the occasional out of the ordinary feature is part of the charm.  Of course, if used repetitively, (even moderate depth bunkers) it certainly loses its "out of the ordinary" character, at least for that course, that day, that round.


We just tend not to go back to the ones who treat us harshly too much of the time, which is how those design formulas really go going in the first place.  (After all, it is a biz.)  Pete Dye used to tout this.  He knew his once a lifetime "must play" courses had far more latitude to punish golfers, since they were traveling only to see/play something out of the ordinary.  They probably would shy away from those type courses if it was their everyday course.


As always, just MHO.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
At one point you said bunkers should be a half shot penalty.  Are you sure you really mean that?  Half shot penalty for who?  Should ALL bunkers offer the same level of difficulty and same level of possible recovery?  I don't think so and I believe you don't think so either.  So much depends on the architect's intent of the individual hazard, the strategy of the entire golf hole, and also who they believe will be playing there.   


Can fairway bunkers be too deep?  Can green contours be too difficult?  Can fairways be too narrow or too wide?  Can holes be too long or too short?  Can trees be too much in play?  Can a hole be too difficult or too easy?  The answer to all of these questions is subjective but the rule of thumb most architects use is variety.  Too much of anything is usually not a good thing. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,
At one point you said bunkers should be a half shot penalty.  Are you sure you really mean that?  Half shot penalty for who?  Should ALL bunkers offer the same level of difficulty and same level of possible recovery?  I don't think so and I believe you don't think so either.  So much depends on the architect's intent of the individual hazard, the strategy of the entire golf hole, and also who they believe will be playing there.   
 

Good point. I do tend to forget that there are 18 handicappers. While some of the bunkers at Woodhall Spa maybe a half or one shot penalty for the better play for one of my best friends, who is an 18, it could be two shots.

[Sean_A]

Sean, you have been pretty outspoken about the overuse of bunkers. How do you determine what is an appropriate use of them. Are Woodhall Spa and Ganton over bunkered? Beau Desert? Cavendish? RND would seem ok.

Tommy

I don't have a set number of bunkers in mind because many factors are involved such as fairway width, placement, style and size bunkers, difficulty of rough, aesthetics, type of soil, other features and hazards etc. I seriously dislike facing the same features over most holes. To me, many championship courses are guilty of this. Even the courses built on sand often have too many bunkers and I give more latitude for sand based courses. On the other hand, if its easy to build bunkers in sandy sites its also easy to create interesting shaping.

But yes, I think Woodhall probably has too many bunkers or at least it did...I haven't seen the new work. My main issue with Woodhall is the fairways were so narrow the often boringly placed flanking bunkers simply generate a what else should I expect response. If variety is important, that is not what one should be thinking. I don't think Ganton is over bunkered to any serious degree because the bunkers are generally more creatively placed than at Woodhall. The issue at Ganton is offering more space to compliment the bunkers. I don't think Beau is over bunkered to any real degree, but if many remain dull, lifeless pits, I would rather see them taken out. If anything, Cavendish could use more fairway bunkering! I don't know Co Down well enough to say.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Tommy,
At one point you said bunkers should be a half shot penalty.  Are you sure you really mean that?  Half shot penalty for who?  Should ALL bunkers offer the same level of difficulty and same level of possible recovery?  I don't think so and I believe you don't think so either.  So much depends on the architect's intent of the individual hazard, the strategy of the entire golf hole, and also who they believe will be playing there.   

Good point. I do tend to forget that there are 18 handicappers. While some of the bunkers at Woodhall Spa maybe a half or one shot penalty for the better play for one of my best friends, who is an 18, it could be two shots.

The revised and ‘opened-up’ Woodhall Spa is terrific. Yes there is some deep bunkering but not everywhere and there’s also a whole bunch of width so playing the angles is important. The ground game is playable as well except on the par-3’s which need care. It’s a “15th club”, the one between the ears, golf course.
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a great thread; thanks to all for the contributions; it's especially interesting to read what Jeff and Tom have to say on this.

I've thought about this very question quite a bit because of the particular course that I play, which features extremely penal fairway bunkers on virtually every hole.  So here are some things about which I'm willing to be told I'm wrong.

1. The depth of a fairway bunker should, more or less, vary inversely with the distance from the green.  Being in a fairway bunker 190 out and having to hit a wedge just seems to me to take a lot of fun and thought out of the game.

2. The depth of a fairway bunker should, more or less, vary directly with the risk-reward possibilities that the bunker creates.  I'm ok with a very tough fairway bunker that guards the inside of a dogleg IF there is a high level of reward for successfully carrying it AND if there is plenty or room to play away from the bunker.

3. The depth of a fairway bunker is only one part of the equation; the other part is the degree of slope and the room to take a stance.  Again, if I find myself in a fairway bunker and, because I don't really have a decent stance can only hit a wedge, a lot of fun and thought go out of the game.

4. Above all, I like Tom Doak's premise that there should be no formulas in this.  I'd be ok with the absurdly difficult fairway bunker on #11 at my course if I hadn't just played 9 and 10 with equally absurdly difficult fairway bunkers, all well over 150 yds from the front of the green.

But your whole post is in fact a rough formula, based on proportionality.  Tom's tag line used to read something like "getting the paradox of proportionality right is the crux of design" (should probably go look it up, rather than guess.)


And basically, I agree in general with your basic premises, and would design most bunkers under those guidelines, reserving the right to violate the guidelines either out of necessity or whimsy.  Tom's POV is so strong against formulas that he refuses to admit them outright, fearing architects might always be too bound to guidelines. I have never believed that stating a basic guideline prohibits me from thinking out of the box every so often (but believing too often must makes for goofy golf)

I find it hard to believe that golfers and even golf course architects don't form some expectations as to what constitutes good design.  But I think they also form expectations as to always be on the lookout for something different, since some of the thrill is the variety of the playing fields.

Yes, a deep bunker makes more sense when reward is greater, and it seems to me that would ideally be later in the round and on a par 5, where the carry is most likely to reward you with a stroke below par.  Or a short 4 where you shouldn't screw up, with options to lay up, play wide, etc.  Possibly on a long 4, but only if given really wide girth to get around it.   Etc.


Deep bunkers on every hole would be as bad as water on every hole.  Maybe worse, because they didn't have to be that way, someone decided they would be that way.  But, when part of the attraction of golf is different playing fields, and there is no real severe penalty, the occasional out of the ordinary feature is part of the charm.  Of course, if used repetitively, (even moderate depth bunkers) it certainly loses its "out of the ordinary" character, at least for that course, that day, that round.


We just tend not to go back to the ones who treat us harshly too much of the time, which is how those design formulas really go going in the first place.  (After all, it is a biz.)  Pete Dye used to tout this.  He knew his once a lifetime "must play" courses had far more latitude to punish golfers, since they were traveling only to see/play something out of the ordinary.  They probably would shy away from those type courses if it was their everyday course.


As always, just MHO.

Jeff,

I'd prefer to think of what I wrote as "guiding principles" or "general concepts", or even "things to keep in mind", rather than a formula. 

This is another one of those situations in which I realize the chasm between what I know and what you guys do.  About the best I can offer is anecdotal stuff about particular bunkers I've seen that I knew were right, and bunkers I've seen that I knew weren't.  And this particular subject is near and dear to my heart because I play the vast majority of my rounds now on a course with what I have constantly referred to as "absurdly penal bunkering" on almost every hole on the golf course.  Brilliant placement, but just ridiculously difficult, both to play out of and to maintain.  And formulaic...


Again, great thread; thanks for your thoughts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

AG,


I agree, guiding principles or something similar is the best description or title.  Earlier this year, I compiled modified versions of all my Golf Course Industry columns into a book for the ASGCA Foundation, now delayed in publication, of course.  One of the sections was "Underlying Design Principles."  The next chapter was the related, "Overriding concerns."  Still others concern design of greens, tees, fw, etc. in very general ways.


In trying to write as one voice for over 100 architects, I was very much less specific than I would be under my own name, and we seem to have reached consensus as to where those generalities might be appropriate, without stepping on toes of any architect who has slightly different thoughts.


My only point on "formula" is that once we establish some guiding principles - and again, I would say most architects would agree with yours, I find it natural to study the details, because architecture needs to be more (as a goal, anyway) than slightly off renditions of good ideas. 


To use bunkers as an example, Tom Doak and I both have said similar things - We want fw bunkers to tempt players into going longer than they can, but where they will only be successful with a good, full shot, well struck.  So, in free time, that led me to study the launch angles of different irons, i.e., 9 iron has 45 degrees loft, and probably a few less degrees of actual shot loft.  2 irons have an average of 18 degrees loft, which translates to 100 % (1 to 1 bank) and 33% (3 to 1 bank) which would theoretically by the max that would allow those clubs (in the hands of whatever class of player you design for) to escape, presuming a shot rolled back down the slope to a flat area of the sand bunker.  Was that little bit of study a total waste of my time? (about an hour out of 40 years plus as a gca?)  Is it dumb to at least know what you are striving for?


Of course, even starting with that sort on analysis, in the end, the free form shape of any bunker makes a consistent application of that principle impossible from every single spot. And, according to Ross, maybe that should only be applicable on the inside edge of the bunker, because the near miss is a better shot than one that finds the outside of the bunker.  So, in the end, I probably eyeball it, just as any architect probably also would.  I think most would sort of know how deep a lip a standard 2 iron would clear, although they might subconsciously be thinking of only their game, as well (perhaps a particular fault of PGA Tour pro designers? I don't know....)


In the end, yes, there are some general principles for almost any detail design feature.  The successful design is a mix of art and science (as in, there is a science to everything (one of my grandma's favorite sayings))  In general, people like to attribute gca mostly to art, and it is, but there is always a bit of science, too.  If the course you play had applied some of your general guidelines, I bet you and most others would find it more enjoyable to play. 


Unrelated, but the "course you could play every day" should probably have a more exalted status in the golf world, again, IMHO.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


I agree, guiding principles or something similar is the best description or title.  Earlier this year, I compiled modified versions of all my Golf Course Industry columns into a book for the ASGCA Foundation, now delayed in publication, of course.  One of the sections was "Underlying Design Principles."  The next chapter was the related, "Overriding concerns."  Still others concern design of greens, tees, fw, etc. in very general ways.


In trying to write as one voice for over 100 architects, I was very much less specific than I would be under my own name, and we seem to have reached consensus as to where those generalities might be appropriate, without stepping on toes of any architect who has slightly different thoughts.


My only point on "formula" is that once we establish some guiding principles - and again, I would say most architects would agree with yours, I find it natural to study the details, because architecture needs to be more (as a goal, anyway) than slightly off renditions of good ideas. 


To use bunkers as an example, Tom Doak and I both have said similar things - We want fw bunkers to tempt players into going longer than they can, but where they will only be successful with a good, full shot, well struck.  So, in free time, that led me to study the launch angles of different irons, i.e., 9 iron has 45 degrees loft, and probably a few less degrees of actual shot loft.  2 irons have an average of 18 degrees loft, which translates to 100 % (1 to 1 bank) and 33% (3 to 1 bank) which would theoretically by the max that would allow those clubs (in the hands of whatever class of player you design for) to escape, presuming a shot rolled back down the slope to a flat area of the sand bunker.  Was that little bit of study a total waste of my time? (about an hour out of 40 years plus as a gca?)  Is it dumb to at least know what you are striving for?


Of course, even starting with that sort on analysis, in the end, the free form shape of any bunker makes a consistent application of that principle impossible from every single spot. And, according to Ross, maybe that should only be applicable on the inside edge of the bunker, because the near miss is a better shot than one that finds the outside of the bunker.  So, in the end, I probably eyeball it, just as any architect probably also would.  I think most would sort of know how deep a lip a standard 2 iron would clear, although they might subconsciously be thinking of only their game, as well (perhaps a particular fault of PGA Tour pro designers? I don't know....)


In the end, yes, there are some general principles for almost any detail design feature.  The successful design is a mix of art and science (as in, there is a science to everything (one of my grandma's favorite sayings))  In general, people like to attribute gca mostly to art, and it is, but there is always a bit of science, too.  If the course you play had applied some of your general guidelines, I bet you and most others would find it more enjoyable to play. 


Unrelated, but the "course you could play every day" should probably have a more exalted status in the golf world, again, IMHO.

As ever, great post, Jeff; thank you.

When you get a minute, can you explain more of what you are talking about in the 4th paragraph where you describe your study of launch angles and bunker faces?  When you say "2 irons have an average of 18 degrees loft, which translates to 100 % (1 to 1 bank) and 33% (3 to 1 bank) which would theoretically by the max that would allow those clubs (in the hands of whatever class of player you design for) to escape, presuming a shot rolled back down the slope to a flat area of the sand bunker. "  I really, really want to read more about your ideas on this. 


For instance:  Suppose that you are designing a bunker that will guard the inside of a dogleg 150 yds from the center of the green, with a pretty strong risk-reward element.  When you construct that bunker, how would you decide how deep to make it or how high the face should be?  Do you build that for a mid-handicapper who can hit a 7 iron 150?  And would you see the depth of that sort of bunker as generally different from a "savior bunker", even at the same distance?

(And assume that we are talking about a course that your employer wants to be one of those that golfers of all levels "could play every day".  The course will never host a US Open, but scratch golfers and chops alike love it.  I agree with you 100% that such a course truly has "exalted status".  Or should...)

[Jeff_Brauer]

A.G.,


Sorry for the confusion.  I always work in % slope, which is about 2.2 X degrees for the same measurement.  45 degrees is a 100% slope.  For convenience, since

launch angle for average golfers is about half club loft angle, and each % slope is about twice degrees, it effectively means I can just use the actual loft angle of the club to represent the approximate slope % on the front of the bunker!)

As to specifics, first, nature does usually decide how deep that bunker will be, unless a flat site and I can build up as much backing fill as I wish. But yes, I actually do use a 7 iron at 150 yards as a proxy when designing for everyday players.  I know a tour player would be hitting a lob wedge, but in most cases I don't design for them.  Of course, under the "deeper when closer" theory, a hole might have a shallow bunker at 200 yards for the green and a deep one 100 yards, and "appropriately" challenge both, etc.


My only point is that the math details of that bunker matter when designing it primarily as a tempting hazard.  For everyday play, if if I theorize that I would like to make it borderline to clear the lip, for a good, but shorter hitting player, to potentially reach the green, then [/size][/color]

it seems to me that a sand bunker 150 yards from the green, on the direct line of play at least, should be <34% slope to implement

[/size][/color]

that

[/size][/color]

design theory. 

I mostly design cape and bay style bunkers, but the theory  probably works whether that bank is sand or grass, the ball doesn't care. 
If doing flat bottom bunkers with a steep bank, there is obviously the potential for a wedge out lie if just at the base of the slope.  Again, no big whup, but in theory, you tend to punish the longer tee shot more, which is actually the better tee shot, whereas the guy who semi fans a drive and finds the front of the bunker has a relatively easy play.  Hey, maybe he needs to help and the gca should give it to him?  Who knows?


And, as you suggest, so often bunkers are for other functions, including artistic composition, save from worse trouble, aiming devices, or in a few cases, because people think playing out of wet sand is better than playing off of wet turf, i.e., the bunker is a (half assed) drainage solution.  But, I usually like bunkers to be appropriate hazard first, then whatever other way it can be useful.


In reality, in most cases its hard to convey the exact slope to bulldozer guys and get any exact percentage.  In the end, I'm happy if my bunkers 200 yards from the green are a bit shallower and flatter than those 100 yards from the green, etc.  As to the math, I have just logged too many miles on planes over the years, and I occupy my mind with these kinds of riddles rather than watching movies.

[Thomas Dai]

Listen at approx the 60 min point* for some insights into bunkers and sand etc - "sand gardens" - in this Derek Duncan, Jim Urbina, Don Mahaffey "Feed the Ball Salon' podcast -https://feedtheball.com/feed-the-ball-salon-vol-1/
Cracking stuff.

atb


PS - the whole Podcast is worth listening too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My first thought after listening was that as much theory as anyone may put into the design of any individual sand bunker, certainly the type of sand used would affect design thought.  IF we were able to use a local sand, more prone to fried egg lies, they maybe it doesn't matter how deep the bunker is, as the penalty comes from the sand itself.  Also, it could be quite random, negating any design thought whatsoever, LOL. 


For the most part, I would guess bunkers would be theoretically  be shallower if sand was softer, maybe as a defense against many golfers wedging out and getting only half power due to some degree of buried lie.  And, with the combinations of the best white sands, which are so firm every shot finding the bunker rolls back down to the exact bottom, that certainly negates much concern for how steep the edge is, as the golfer will always be well away from the lip.


Or, you would just give up thinking about it?  Part of proportionality probably considers reasonably playable lies can be expected.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,


Sorry for the confusion.  I always work in % slope, which is about 2.2 X degrees for the same measurement.  45 degrees is a 100% slope.  For convenience, since

launch angle for average golfers is about half club loft angle, and each % slope is about twice degrees, it effectively means I can just use the actual loft angle of the club to represent the approximate slope % on the front of the bunker!)

As to specifics, first, nature does usually decide how deep that bunker will be, unless a flat site and I can build up as much backing fill as I wish. But yes, I actually do use a 7 iron at 150 yards as a proxy when designing for everyday players.  I know a tour player would be hitting a lob wedge, but in most cases I don't design for them.  Of course, under the "deeper when closer" theory, a hole might have a shallow bunker at 200 yards for the green and a deep one 100 yards, and "appropriately" challenge both, etc.


My only point is that the math details of that bunker matter when designing it primarily as a tempting hazard.  For everyday play, if if I theorize that I would like to make it borderline to clear the lip, for a good, but shorter hitting player, to potentially reach the green, then

it seems to me that a sand bunker 150 yards from the green, on the direct line of play at least, should be <34% slope to implement

that

design theory. 

I mostly design cape and bay style bunkers, but the theory  probably works whether that bank is sand or grass, the ball doesn't care. 
If doing flat bottom bunkers with a steep bank, there is obviously the potential for a wedge out lie if just at the base of the slope.  Again, no big whup, but in theory, you tend to punish the longer tee shot more, which is actually the better tee shot, whereas the guy who semi fans a drive and finds the front of the bunker has a relatively easy play.  Hey, maybe he needs to help and the gca should give it to him?  Who knows?


And, as you suggest, so often bunkers are for other functions, including artistic composition, save from worse trouble, aiming devices, or in a few cases, because people think playing out of wet sand is better than playing off of wet turf, i.e., the bunker is a (half assed) drainage solution.  But, I usually like bunkers to be appropriate hazard first, then whatever other way it can be useful.


In reality, in most cases its hard to convey the exact slope to bulldozer guys and get any exact percentage.  In the end, I'm happy if my bunkers 200 yards from the green are a bit shallower and flatter than those 100 yards from the green, etc.  As to the math, I have just logged too many miles on planes over the years, and I occupy my mind with these kinds of riddles rather than watching movies.

Jeff,

One of the great things about this site is the opportunity to read stuff from guys like you and feel smarter when I finish than when I started reading.  Thank you for this post; I loved it!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()