Jeff's post without the formatting issues;
“Intelligent bunkering” sounds more like the scientific methods proposed 100 years ago for design when “architecting” became a thing. Also, in previewing this and its formatting, apparently intelligent posting is beyond me. So, why would anyone listen to these late night/early morning/insomnia fueled random thoughts? I enjoy the mental gymnastics of following an idea to it's logical conclusion, at least, in MHO.
Einstein once said, “We should make things as simple as they can be, but not simpler.” He also said, “I never came upon my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.”
If you follow those thoughts from one of the most intelligent men ever, which is it? As said by others, no matter how strong a philosophical, linear, and logical train of thought a bunkering scheme has, at some point, rational thinking cannot provide intelligent bunkering all in and of itself.
But, to follow the idea through to conclusion, I suspect measuring the IQ of a bunker scheme would require a strict checklist of items to compare it against.
I think by the post WWII era, the ideas of how to bunker coalesced into a standard checklist, and perhaps too standard mode. It probably was most influenced by the depression era MacKenzie ANGC design with 34 bunkers, and Tillinghast’s program at removing “duffer’s headaches. And, those two influences lasted until Pete Dye, and then other golf course architects in the big money eras.
Einstein’s comments, “Making things as simple as can be, but no simpler” mimics the old design axiom of “less is more.” 30 bunkers beat 40, and 40 beats 50, etc. Obviously, this varies from course to course. The concept of “benchmarking” is present, and if one of the most important tournaments in the world can host the best with 30 some bunkers, it becomes harder to argue more are needed, at least on design principle. (Obviously a sand barren site like Pine Valley would have trouble achieving that low a number of bunkers.
Certainly, the cost of building and maintaining sand bunkers now argues for fewer sand bunkers, too. So did memories of the depression and WWII by the post WWII golf course architects, who probably figured that intelligent bunkers would be ones that survived periodic or persistent difficult financial times. Maintenance doesn’t have to be expensive, true, but they probably figured they shouldn’t rely on something they cannot control.
When I entered the biz in 1977, I think these ideas were pretty much engrained in mainstream golf course architectural thinking. Every bunker should be located or used:
- First and foremost, as a strategic hazard, mostly for better players (i.e., why build duffer’s headaches? They cost a lot, slow play, and duffers find the game hard enough on grass….)
- Near anticipated landing zones by better players (or with multiple tees, other classes of players).
- Granted, some golf course architects became too focused on the assumed dogleg point of 250, 265, 285, and 300 yards, but no bunker is intelligently placed if it ignores the effects of elevation changes, wind direction and typical strength, altitude and even turf conditions.
- With variations, sand bunkers were 1-1.5 stroke penalties, not 2+ stroke penalties of OB and water.
- Used only when a hole is devoid of natural hazards, or are complimentary to natural hazards.
Beyond that, bunkers can serve other purposes, like:
• Directional or deception
• Save bunkers
• Hole Dividers
• Aesthetics – in and of themselves
• Provide scale, depth, or framing as desired by golf course architect.
• Provide Variety, so every hole looks a bit different than the others.
• Drainage or detention areas, or in shady areas where turf cannot grow and you don’t accept dirt as the alternative.
Logically, if minimizing bunkering is an assumed truism, then every sand bunker should do something on that list, and do it well. A bunker is more valuable if it performs 2 or more functions, and one that provides some element of 3 functions is most valuable of all.
What about Einstein’s exception of not coming up with great ideas with rational thinking? I gather the golf course architect should be allowed to make a few exceptions to strongly held rules, when the mood strikes, or situation calls for it. Even then, I suspect the followers of the logic would expect the architect to be able to succinctly state why the exception was a good idea, beyond, “Because I said so!”.
If the old 80-20 rule holds, then they might expect and accept maybe 20% of 18 holes where the rules are broken, i.e., do something you wouldn’t normally do on about 3.6 of 18 holes. Or be bold, and round it up to 4 holes!
There is a counter trend for everything. In golf, Pete Dye was probably the first to redefine the American bunker theory, and in many ways, it was just to be different and stand out. Later, when money was flowing, other golf course architects played follow the leader, either in providing more bunkers for aesthetics only, “random bunkering” to challenge other players occasionally, etc. Of course, back in the 50’s RTJ and Dick Wilson made no effort to minimize bunkers. We can argue if that was intelligent or not, but they relied heavily on trees, water, and sand bunkers for challenge. The trend to grass bunkers, chipping areas and other supplementary hazards came later, perhaps out of boredom. Personally, I think the more hazard types the better the variety.
I have defended the 50’s golf course architects as having done what is right for their times, and much of that philosophy was sound, but its use was overly repetitive and then stale. Design fields require change, and tastes change. When it comes to bunkering, the underlying philosophy of those architects largely remains, but is being tweaked around the edges, keeping what works, and changing what is needed to make bunkering fresh for these times. However, courses still have approximately the same number of bunkers, generally similar depths, and generally located mostly for good players, at least within the natural variations you would expect from any generation of golf course architects trying to stand out.
That said, is standing out by building too many or impractical bunkers really good (and intelligent) design?