Bunkers

[Keith Durrant]

I'm sure this question has been discussed before, so forgive me:

What are the pros and cons of pot bunkers vs low-lipped bunkers?

Are low-lipped bunkers just a sign of "freeway" golf?

Are there other reasons why pot bunkers remain the preserve of traditional links courses? Perhaps the only way to keep sand in the traps, avoiding wind erosion, was to make them deep and sheltered?

Should fairway bunkers be penal and "make a golfer take his medicine, pitching out" or allow a heroic risk-taking shot at the green?

What is the point of a fairway bunker sited in the rough? Shouldnt they at least be strategically nibbling into the fairway on the best line?

[scratch]

The pot bunkering of the current links courses of Britain in particular are merely formalised versions of what was originally there.  Whilst there is merit for the argument that the revetted bunkering keeps the sand from being blown away, there are several books on golf architecture which depict numerous examples of bunkering on courses such as St Andrews, Lytham, St George's etc which were something akin to the modern day Sand Hills.  Tom Doak's bunkering work at Pacific Dunes could hardly be described as 'Pot' bunkering. I guess an easy way to sum this up would be to say that the present way of preparing 'pot' bunkering hasn't always been the case.

Some of the best bunkering illustrated to this day is the Mackenzie bunkering on the dune holes at Cypress Point which are simply a transition between the fairways and sand dunes.  

[Doug Siebert]

Deep bunkers are probably a drainage problem in some parts of the US.  They require hand maintenance instead of driving the tractor with the rake through it.  Plus many US golfers are pussies and would whine too much

[James Edwards]

Rottcodd,

To answer one of your questions, IMO, the fairway bunker should be a half a shot penalty.  The chance of recovery should be a possibility for the golfer.  This doesn't necessarily mean that you must beable to hit the green, but to beable to get the ball back into a good par saving position.

But there is also room, every now and then, for a penal bunker which the golfer is fully aware of on the tee as a little reminder that good tee shots are rewarded.

[wsmorrison]

Here is what Hugh Wilson had to say in 1916 about bunkers:

"The question of bunkers is a big one and we believe the very best school for study is along the seacoast among the sand dunes.  Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers.  We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape.  The criticism has been made that they are too easy, that is the banks are too sloping and that a man may at times play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker, where he should be forced to use a niblick.  This opens a pretty big subject and we appreciate that the tendency is to make bunkers more and more difficult.  In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy' the only exception being, where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or some similar substance to keep the same from blowing.  This has made a perfectly straight wall but it was not done with the intention of making it more difficult to get out, but merely to retain the bunker as it exists.  If we make the banks of bunkers so steep that the very best player is forced to always use a niblick and the only hope he has is to be able to get his ball back on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule, as we have at present with water hazards, where a many may if he so desires, drop back with the loss of one stroke.  I thoroughly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out but that the best and the worst must use a niblick."

This passage was omitted from the final version of Wilson's paper done at the request of Piper and Oakley as he thought it better to be included in a treatment on golf course construction.

Draw your own conclusions, but I believe that Wilson and his colleagues wanted the best players a chance to execute a challenging shot and not to penalize all players, good and bad, the same way; that is each to blast out back to the fairway or around the green.  Both Wilson and Flynn believed strongly in the recovery shot and that the better player should not be confronted with only a singular recovery but have their individual talents dictate the type of recovery that could be made albeit necessary to pull it off only with a well-executed shot.

[A_Clay_Man]

As JJSE thinks, so did Ross. Half a shot penalty for failing the challenge. Of course with the abilities of todays players, high lips are not as hard to overcome. Maggerts debacle at ANGC last year exemplified what I believe was intended and that is, if the golfer tries to make the heroic shot, and misses by the slightest margin, he should accept his fate.

OT- Yesterday I had a PW in my hands and chose to play an explosion shot from a deep greenside bunker deep in a foot print, with a small hillock like formation, directly behind my ball. The shot resulted in perhaps one of the best bunker shots I've hit in quite awhile.

So, bring on the adversity because "Golfers" need something to overcome and save the nursegirls and Mrs, Grundys for the bunny slopes.

[James Edwards]

Adam,

Yes, It should be half a shot.

I agree whole heartedly.  That is the kind of scenario I as an  architect is trying to achieve, and thats the golfer coming away from the trouble shot, thinking,"that was tough, but hey how good did I do!!!" that makes the golfer happy on there putt with the response from there playing partners being favourable, and a happy player moves on to the next hole.  There must be challenge otherwise it's a pointless 4-5 hrs walk.

Tom Doaks article in 1991 explaining that there could be room for bunkers as hazards not being raked also adds to the mystery behind the approach shot or the tee shot, which I personally would like to see but I appreciate that a lot of golfers wouldn't like this scenario.

[Keith Durrant]

It does seem though that the British links approach to fairway bunkering has evolved to the point that it's a 3/4 shot penalty and essentially penal in nature.

Every championship course these days seems to have its bunkers re-riveted every so often, and they appear to get deeper and deeper - is this really necessary?

I am looking forward to seeing Formby on TV in June for the Curtis Cup - anyone know which channel is carrying this? If Michelle Wie plays then it should be high-profile.

When I was at Formby 18 months ago, many new fairway bunkers were being put in place, most 25 yards past an existing bunker on the same line. It could play very penal for the girls.

[James Edwards]

Rottcodd,

From my experience, the girls hit it straighter than the boys and so in theory, they will find it easier!

Also, many bunkers at Hoylake, TOC # 17, RStG for example which have/are undertaking bunker renovations as we speak have been shallowing there bunkers.

[James Edwards]

I will be up there to watch the Curtis Cup.  I hope I can give a useful insight into exactly how they tackle the course especially as Danielle Masters (a member at my club) is playing for GB&I.  

[James Edwards]

Willie,

Sorry, (serious question) I've read it a couple of times, but my mind is drawing a blank.  Why is the question gone at Merion?

[Willie_Dow]

Serious questions?  Please give me your definition of a bunker.
What is it supposed to offer a round of golf?

[Forrest Richardson]

rottcodd —

Perhaps the best way to answer this is by turning the question around.

In my view, the best time/place for a "pot" bunker is when the golfer might least expect it. And, conversely, the best time for a low lipped trap (Vardon helped coined that term) would be when conditions might suggest otherwise.

In golf, the obvious is often the worse route.

Both in design and play.

[James Edwards]

Willie, where has your post gone on Merion? between my 2nd and 3rd reply?

IMO, bunkers are directions for the golfer firstly and hazards secondly...

[Willie_Dow]

J.J.S.E.

My earlier post was too vague.  I was trying to seek out your purpose for bunker design.  You now say firstly for direction, and hazards secondly.

What about players choosing a greenside bunker to hit to, knowing he can get up and down in two?

This is where the Max Behr thinking might come into play.

[James Edwards]

Willie,

My thoughts on players that hit puposely towards greenside bunkers is well documented on this site.  I have a real problem with hearing Phil Mickelson shout (amongst numerous others), "get in the bunker" when Mickelson, Woods Garcia and Els played in that match last year.  I have always wanted bunkers not to be prepared as they are hazards after all, but I know greenskeepers have a different view.

I started a thread on it around late 2002.  If someone can find it, I'd appreciate the quick link.  It was called "Bunkers are Hazards... Aren't they???"

Tom Doak came back immediately and said he wrote an article on it in 1991, about bunkers not being raked for the professional.

To answer your questions..  I would never advocate designing a bunker where a player can hit into knowing he/she can get it up and down in two.  Thats why I want to see more natural bunker conditions next to the green, especially on par 5's, like the old days, that way we would see the reintroduction of strategic golf from the tour players as there will be no guaranteed lies in the bunkers.

[TEPaul]

"In golf, the obvious is often the worse route."

Forrest:

In my opinion that says a ton--actually closer to ten tons---about really good design and really good strategic design! In really good strategic design, in my book, there must necessarily be some degree of the riddle, the enigma, the mystery about what or where the best way for any golfer to go (his strategy). Less than that and a lot less than that eventually ends up in the completely obvious which basically boils down to architectural dictation and one dimensional shot dictation! The worst form of that kind of thing is when an architect actually prints up for a course and club a little booklet EXPLAINING to the golfer EXACTLY how to play the golf course! Where's the mental challenge, interest or joy in that? He's basically just removed from any golfer half the joy of golf and turned the course into something akin to going to a shooting gallery where the bull's eye is patently obvious!

[James Edwards]

Tom,

Agreed on both points.  

Unfortunately, strategic design isn't helped by small sites,  where you generally only have one route which is plain to see or two disguised by a bunker carry, unilike a split fairway like #8 at Riviera.

The only problem I can see taking Royal St Georges as my example (as I play there a lot) would be that there are a number of blind shots with thick rough on the other side especially on dog leg blind holes like #5, #7, #8, #13.  If there was a visiting four ball that did not have this knowledge of where to go, they would lose a lot of golf balls.

[Willie_Dow]

Having just played Grand Harbor's Harbor Course designed by Pete Dye it was fun to recall his use of waste bunkers, and mounding which included grass bunkers.

His style seemed to evolve from Harbour Town to Long Cove, then the Moorings and now Grand Harbor.  The feeling of a variety of natural strategy seemed to be ever present.

[James Edwards]

Willie,

I agree that his style evolved from Harbour Town to Long Cove.  I thought LC was a better course for my money for exactly that reason.  The 1st, 5th (especially) and 11th as well as #13 and #14 spring to mind as great holes and theres more on that course.

[Forrest Richardson]

Thank you Mr. Paul — It has made my day that you and I see eye-to-eye about the puzzle that is golf. How much more interesting a jigsaw is when the box is plain cardboard and you only know the picture is "a landscape".

[Doug Siebert]

JJSE,

It isn't just pros, I play that way too (playing for my misses to end up in greenside bunkers instead of greenside rough)  I don't have anywhere near the 50% sand saves pros do, but since my recovery rate from rough is worse than theirs too I'm still better from the sand  Weak bunkers lead to a lot of other evils that affect how I play, like taking the risk out of a well bunkered green complex on a driveable par 4 or reachable par 5, not requiring working the ball or being in the "correct" side of the fairway, etc.

It can take a fair amount of the strategy out of the game and allow a sloppier player to match a more skilled player just by virtue of having a deft touch out of the sand.  Believe me, I've really frustrated a few guys on courses with well bunkered greens.  Its gotta be hard to keep your composure if the guy you are playing against misses every fairway, finds a bunker by every green, and still manages to keep up

Bunkers appear to be no more or less difficult in the US today than they were 50 years ago.  But the areas around the greens on many courses are a lot tougher, with rough, mounding, "grass bunkers", etc.  Irrigation also tends to create soggy spots that limit your options because you can't be sure how the ball is going to react, so you have to play defensively.  Bunkers are easy by comparison, and the more they grow the rough and increase the number and slope of the mounding, the more attractive the bunkers look.

I don't really agree with the "no maintenance" bunkers though, simply because I don't think it is realistic to ever get people to think this is right in our lifetimes.  But we could certainly rake with deep furrowed rakes ala Oakmont, use sand that makes the lofted shots we're hitting into the greens these days more likely to bury (while still letting the lower hotter shots of hackers and seniors more likely to still have a playable lie)

I'd really like to see bunkers with one area with a really high lip.  Kind of hard to draw, but you see some traps in the UK that are set up such that you have almost no shot (or a high risk shot) trying to play to one half of the green, but the lip going for the other half is pretty low.  Do something like that and half the time you end up in that trap you have to make a choice whether to take a chance trying to put the ball close for a one putt, or play it safe for the "guaranteed" two putt bogey.

[James Edwards]

Doug,

That made excellent reading, thank you for your thoughts.

I agree with 95% of it.  With regards to the unmaintained bunker, I would still like to see how a pro or amateur, would select his shot from the middle of the fairway into a par 5, knowing that one of the bunkers is unraked in his direct line of play to the green.  Would they have a different thought process?  Would this have a different shot value?  I think it would...  Tuck the pin away to the right, and leave the bunker to the right unraked and all the others prepared and what do you get...  You get courageous shots again.