Is bunker placement the number one architectural feature?

[mike_malone]

 Recent topics have been about maximalism and minimalism in golf architecture. Other topics which describe styles like penal or strategic design are frequent here. Bunker placement seems to be a key part of the argument in each instance.




   Is bunker placement the chief differentiator in architecture?




Whether in the fairway or at the green I find bunker placement to be what I think of most when deciding how much I enjoy a course.
 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes its probably #1.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bunker placement is not the chief differentiator in architecture. It is actually somewhat overplayed as a key design tool.


But it IS an easy touch point to differentiate between playful design and design by numbers. And so does make a big difference to the enjoyment of a game.

[Bruce Katona]

IMHO, No.


What I consider to be a true guiding feature is the prevailing wind direction and how holes/the entire course plays in relation to it:


1. Uphill - downwind
2. Uphill - into the wind
3. Downhill - into the wind
4. Downhill - with the wind
5. L to R wind where the hole calls for a draw
6. R to L where the hole calls for a fade.


Placing the bunkers where they would catch the maximum number of misplayed shots based on the wind & terrain comes next.

[Brett Hochstein]

It's number 3 at best. Routing and greens are much more important.


Also, bunkers' importance fluctuates based on land itself. The more going on with the land, the less need for bunkers and the less weight they carry.  The flatter and simpler the ground, the more important bunkers become.  North Berwick is a great example of this within a single course.  The bunkers out of the far western part of the Links take on greater meaning to the interest of the architecture in comparison to the eastern holes. And yes, I know there is a Redan Bunker in there to counter my point, but that hollow could be almost as effective even without sand.  This to me is different from the bunkering within the 8th and 9th fairways, which add decision-making and thought to what is otherwise the most subdued ground of the Links.

[Sean_A]

Recent topics have been about maximalism and minimalism in golf architecture. Other topics which describe styles like penal or strategic design are frequent here. Bunker placement seems to be a key part of the argument in each instance.




   Is bunker placement the chief differentiator in architecture?




Whether in the fairway or at the green I find bunker placement to be what I think of most when deciding how much I enjoy a course.
 

Tough for me to say yes when I don’t think bunkers are necessary. Given that bunkers are maybe third on the list?

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 Routing would not be a consideration in this discussion since it’s not a feature in my view.


  My bias is that I believe bunkers are often badly placed particularly when they are built up.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
The location/s of bunkers or any kind of “hazard“ (sadly the term is no longer used) or hazardous situations is the most important aspect of great golf course design.
Mark

[Mike_Trenham]

Site selection is the most important.

[mike_malone]

Mike,
The location/s of bunkers or any kind of “hazard“ (sadly the term is no longer used) or hazardous situations is the most important aspect great golf course design.
Mark

Mark,


You should write a book about it.


I think it is very hard to be simple with bunker placement.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I couldn’t disagree more with the framing as a whole. To me, good design patterns affect/stretch the players dispersion pattern, and has little-to-nothing to do with the actual non-turf hazards themselves.

A bunker will certainly affect dispersion, but so can wind, a non-standard lie, a hillock in the landing zone, a fall away green, etc, etc, etc.

I’m written about this topic on multiple occasions, though I’m obviously not a professional.

Visualizing Risk & Reward On the Golf Course

Luck in Golf

A High Shot Hazard — though this one is less serious, it gets to the point that a hazard has more to do with stretching the dispersion or outcome-potential than it does by simply creating a suboptimal lie for the next shot.

[Thomas Dai]

Unsure whether folks would classify it as a feature or not but there's something that seems pretty important that is usually hidden from view ..... drainage, whether it be natural via the soil type or constructed by man.
atb

[mike_malone]

Another reason for bunker placement being very important to the architecture is the variety of styles used by designers.
  You can often guess the designer from a photo of a hole.

[Charlie Goerges]

I get what you are saying Mike. And yes, the routing isn't a feature of the golf course, it is the golf course (you don't say the number one feature of a car is the car).


That said, as a differentiating factor, I'd still place it behind greens, drainage, and contour. On the other hand, bunkering is much "lighter in weight" than those things, while being more visible. It's super important still, even if it isn't number 1.


But the visibility part is important. Stand on the tee of a hole with at least one bunker with visible sand in it and squint until you can barely see. The only discernable feature will probably be the whitish beige of the sand among a sea of green and greenish brown.

[Rob Marshall]

Nothing worse in my opinion is when the fairway bunkers are all the same distance off the tee.  At my course anyone who can carry it 240 to 250 yards doesn't even know we have fairway bunkers........

[Sean_A]

I get what you are saying Mike. And yes, the routing isn't a feature of the golf course, it is the golf course (you don't say the number one feature of a car is the car).


That said, as a differentiating factor, I'd still place it behind greens, drainage, and contour. On the other hand, bunkering is much "lighter in weight" than those things, while being more visible. It's super important still, even if it isn't number 1.


But the visibility part is important. Stand on the tee of a hole with at least one bunker with visible sand in it and squint until you can barely see. The only discernable feature will probably be the whitish beige of the sand among a sea of green and greenish brown.

I wouldn't say the routing is the course. If compared to a car, the routing is the chassie and engine.

Ciao

[Tim Gavrich]

Bunkers are a "nice to have" golf course feature, not a "need to have." A routing and greens are more essential, so it's hard to envision bunker placement being the most important architectural feature, IMO.

[Mark_Fine]

Think about any famous bunker or hazard or just some of your own favorites (famous or not).  They are on your list or someone else’s because of their location and the interest/challenges they present to the golfer. How they influence play might change everyday depending on the weather, turf conditions, tees you play, etc but they will have some impact on play otherwise they are irrelevant and unnecessary.  Take the road and the road hole bunker as two examples.  We would have never even heard of those two hazards were it not for their location.  Same goes for the Valley of Sin, Hell Bunker, Shell bunker, …the list goes on.


All great golf holes are designed around the challenge they present (and challenge doesn’t alway equate to hard).  A hole without any challenge is a bland hole and will never be considered great golf architecture.  And to Mike’s point, if the challenge is not located well, the hole probably isn’t all that interesting or special. 


Charlie and Thomas,


Yes drainage drainage drainage.  We all get that.  A soccer pitch has to be graded well to drain water off the edges.  But it would make a pretty blah golf hole - no well placed hazards 

[Charlie Goerges]

Yes drainage drainage drainage.  We all get that.  A soccer pitch has to be graded well to drain water off the edges.  But it would make a pretty blah golf hole - no well placed hazards 

Now you mention it, Mark, for purposes of this discussion, I'm happy to drop drainage as it's a mostly non-visible thing and we players usually don't need to worry about it that much. So that's fair enough. Depending on the nature of the site, I'll put bunkers in the top 2 or 3. I still have trouble putting them ahead of greens in importance.


That said, I've probably played courses where the bunkers have been a bigger positive feature than the greens. So if the bunkering is good and the greens are so-so, I could see stating that for that course, bunkers/placement are it's number one architectural feature

[Carl Johnson]

Nothing else matters if the drainage is not handled properly.  I think I recall a Pete Dye quote to the effect that golf course architecture was 95% drainage.  And drainage is invisible . . . until it isn't.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It seems that Sand Hills started a trend whereby bunker placement has become one of the main components of course design. Many new courses are built on sand, so natural bunkers become integral to strategy.

[Matt_Cohn]

Another reason for bunker placement being very important to the architecture is the variety of styles used by designers. You can often guess the designer from a photo of a hole.

The original question is whether bunker placement is the number one architectural feature. I might be able to guess the designer from how a bunker looks, but I doubt I could guess the designer from where it's placed, generally speaking.


Bunker style might be the most noticeable differentiator in architecture. But placement? Probably not so much.

[George Pazin]

Haven't read the other responses yet, but my vote is for using the land movement properly. I realize that's nebulous at best, but that's my answer.

[mike_malone]

 I agree that greens are very important but I think that there are limits on green design. They always are at the end of the hole. Bunkers can create architectural questions throughout.
 We don’t see many Stiwell Park greens anymore although some new courses are  getting wild.


 I recently talked about Hollywood in northeast New Jersey. It has very interesting greens but the bunkering dominates the architecture.

[mike_malone]

Another reason for bunker placement being very important to the architecture is the variety of styles used by designers. You can often guess the designer from a photo of a hole.

The original question is whether bunker placement is the number one architectural feature. I might be able to guess the designer from how a bunker looks, but I doubt I could guess the designer from where it's placed, generally speaking.




Bunker style might be the most noticeable differentiator in architecture. But placement? Probably not so much.

There have been some recent Evan Schiller photos of Ridgewood which show the green pinced by fronting bunkers. The shapes are important but the placement is paramount.


I have been comparing economical bunkering placed to create a mode of play which often encourages you to take on the hazard versus expansive bunkering which tends to be more penal. You avoid the bunkers. Placement is important in these two differing styles.


If you saw a cluster of bunkers placed to test the second shot on a par five you probably could guess the designer regardless of the shapes.