Bunkers at the rear..? Strategic? or..?

[Steve Sayers]

In September 1935, A.W. Tillinghast visited LuLu (Ross c. 1915) as part of his work with the PGA.  Below are his comments regarding LuLu that were sent back to the President of the PGA:

“The afternoon found me at Lu Lu Temple Country Club in North Hills at the request of P.G.A. member Bob Aitken.  I made a complete study of the course with him and the greenkeeper, Ted Roberts. After advising the elimination of a number of useless pits and mounds of such formality as to prove troublesome and expensive to keep in condition, I made a special study of the fifth hole, which may be greatly improved by a new green in such a natural location that it will be possible to construct it cheaply without disturbing play.  Both men favored my suggestion immediately as well as several others at greens where misplaced pits, immediately back of the greens trapped long, and accurate shots”

What strikes me is his statement about “… misplaced pits, immediately back of the greens trapped long, and accurate shots” – are long shots accurate?

It’s interesting that as early as 1935 rear bunkers were falling out of favor.

As an aside, none of  AWT recommendations were implemented at LuLu.

[James Edwards]

Steve, thank you for the information on AWT.

I suppose he was meaning long holes requiring long iron approaches, or even woods to reach.  If indeed you were lucky enough to hit the ball sweetly and accurately in the first place with a bread knife, you shouldn't be penalised by going into a pit at the end of the long journey to the green.
...especially with hard and firm conditons found on the links courses I play day in day out..

Interesting account though, thanks - I'm not surprised he didn't like them either.

Brad, thank you

Seminole 13th - Great hole! I can't remember off hand the back bunker there, but I can remember the others round the green, even though I spent most of my time at the back of the green looking out to sea.. great place..

What happens if you take it away with the downhill lay of the land?  does it make the shot tougher? I think it does.

[Willie_Dow]

William Flynn, and his utilization of the back bunker, has always intrigued me.  I know I have mentioned this before, but this thread has aroused my recall of his work.  Thinking back on the difficulties of the flat downhill shots from these locations, to a downhill run of the green and the difficulty of getting that shot close, comes to mind.
From the left side of #15 Philly Country, which from the tee on this par 3 is really behind the green, the old flat bunkers were just that.  Same behind #8 at PCC, and #10 (I think).  Then the back of #1 and #5 & #6 at Merion East.  Probably the most memorable, behind #7 on Merion West.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Peter Jacobsen, When asked what one thing amateurs could do to improve their game, "Take more club."  If we could study this issue a little more deeply, I think we would find that most shots end on the front of the green.  

Probably due to overwatering and inflated egos.  Watering makes the green soft preventing the ball from running to the back or through the green and ego because we all think that we can hit it on the screws every time.  I know I hit an eight iron 150 yards because I could do it five years ago.   :-/

The back bunker or the skyline green all add in to these equations.

By the way Pat I think all courses are over marked.  GPS is  the worst thing to happen to golf in the last twenty five years and am proud to say I play by feel more than by the numbers.  Which might be an interesting thread at some time in the future.  

[Forrest Richardson]

A very thoughtful thread. Thanks.

I agree with Patrick in that the better player is not affected as much by sand to the rear of a green. This is because the better player will more often be able to stop a ball once it reaches the putting surface. Also, the better player who hits the fairway wood or longish iron to a green has more chance of stopping a ball where he wants it than the higher handicapped player who might have a 50-yard variation with such clubs.

Art makes good point of saying that he tightens areas with rear bunkers, so we can assume that there may be a portion of some of these rear bunkers edging a portion of the green -- from what he describes these are bunkers nudged into greens at the rear, which sounds better than just having them back there without much effect except to catch a too-long hit. I believe the technical term for nudging a bunker into the rear of a green is "bunker sodomy".

There are four aspects of bunkers that come into play relative to those located behind greens:

1. A bunker is a psychological landmark -- it can persuade play to one side or to stop short in this use. At the rear a bunker can suggest that a ball must be stopped. This, in turn, can play havoc with club selection; "Do I club down or go with what I feel...?" / "Do I play slightly right to protect against that bunker back left...?"

2. Physical containment -- a bunker at the rear can stop a ball from traveling too far into the path of the next tee, too far down a steep slope that would be difficult to traverse to find a ball, too far into Mrs. Myers radish garden, etc.

3. Traffic paths -- a bunker can direct those leaving a green to exit and move on according to what is a desirable path.

4. Aesthetics and scale -- not all bunkers are entirely functional to affect a golf ball. Some are placed to work with the views, textures and needs of a scene.

[Matt_Cohn]

What about a different kind of back bunker...say, a wedge-length approach to a green that is totally open in front, the pin a few steps from the back of the green, with a drop off just behind the flag to a deep bunker - I think it would have to be a blind bunker from the fairway. A golfer would really have to be bold to try to get a shot all the way back there - but at the same time, a high marker would almost never hit into a bunker over the green.

This would be sort of opposite of a skyline bunker. It's more like the Road than the Road Bunker. Thoughts?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'll chime in because I also find these thoughtful threads on golf architecture better than the ones on golf architects.....

Matt,

I tried something like you describe at Colbert Hills No. 2, but not with a blind back bunker, because the green was built in an upslope.  I placed two massive bunkers, left and back to catch the eye, with the front open.  The left side has a level run up approach, but the right side of this green falls down and away to a fairway chipping area.  The fall actually starts about 10 foot inside the green.  If the player plays too short to avoid the sand, he trickles down to a medium length pitch.

The theory is kind of "Eden" like, differing in that by pairing a dramatic visual hazard with  a subtle one, I may force the golfer to inadvertantly overcompensate to his own demise.

That's the theory, anyway.

[James Edwards]

Good to hear some sensible alternatives and ideas which ultimately improves the back bunkers significance.

I'm a member of a golf course in England with 180 bunkers, which has a significant amount of back/ rear bunkers.  All of them come at the end of long holes with back to front greens.  They never get used.

Jeff, Forrest, Matt - I think thats a solid concept of bunkers that play into the hands of the wedge.

[Forrest Richardson]

J.J.S.E.  -- My last completed course had just 15 sand bunkers. So please, when you get a moment, ship 30 or 40 over. Thanks.

[stu_w]

Hi James

I can think of one back bunker that provides strategy, great aesthetics and for those unfortunate to get in it one of the most daunting bunker shots in golf... 17th @ Valderamma.

The water, slope of the fairway and slope of the green are a major influence in shot choice on this hole,  be it your 2nd or your 3rd. (anyone remember Faldo's 3 wood second to this hole with the ball below his feet)

Add to this is the 20 odd feet you have from the bunker to the green that is made up by a shallow depression, again another major influence on shot choice as the bunker shot has to be played with some aggression back towards the water,  to a green about 12+ on the stimp sloping into the water.

[James Edwards]

Stuart,

Thank you for your comment..

I assume you are Stuart Wilson who plays at Canterbury Golf Club, Kent England (nr Royal St Georges) and who happens to be my partner for the county??

Yes, I agreed with your points.. here's a question though -

If you took the bunker away and made it in to a grass swale.... would it make the shot easier or tougher?

Take Augusta 13th, having played through the green ( or granted back left of the green), does the player want to be in the bunkers or in the swale between the green and the bunkers?

Be interested in your thoughts bud?

James

[stu_w]

Hi James.

From the fairway the shot would lose a its visual appeal but dependant on the length of the grass and the angle on the slope i think it would be a much harder shot.  Purley because the lie would not allow the quality of strike you would get from the sand.  This echos back to one of your other posts (ref Bunkers are hazards arn't they).  

One thing we would see would be less balls in the water but more 3 putt pars and bogeys due to duffed chips coming up short etc.

I'm not sure the hole would become easier or harder but it would definalty lose its fear for the 5 to 20+ handicap player