[Patrick_Mucci]

I've noticed a few clubs that have bunkers behind the green that are invisible to the players eye.  Most of these clubs tend to be older, classic courses.

Do many new courses contain this feature ?

If not, why not ?

[Will E]

You've never been long on 8 at GC have you Pat?

I see it a lot in Dye's work. If I'm not mistaken he has claimed most good players miss greens long and left and he tends to make sure he's got plenty of work for them if the end up there.
Being long on many classic courses that I see is trouble because of the slope of the green (see Beverly, Seminole). I rarely see an architect put a hazard behind a green, usually it's a forced carry. Island greens would be the exception.

Mike Young designed a par three that I really like that has water pinching the back of the green. With not much trouble short, and from an elevated tee it's a very unique look and I like it.

[Eric Pevoto]

French Creek has a pretty deep coffin bunker behind the 16th green.  It's a nice compliment to the two hidden back in the landing area for the second shot.  

[Joe Hancock]

A lot of golf course/ developements have this feature as eye candy on the back slopes of greens where roads are alongside. It helps sell the real estate, don't you know.

Joe

[henrye]

On my home course, which is only 2 years old, there is a nasty little bunker hidden behind the right side of the short par 3, 15th.  The hole is short.  From the back it's 167 yards and 148 from the tees I play.  The bunker is completely hidden.  The green is sloped right to left, so when the pin is at the back left, many people aim in the middle to middle right and try and catch the slope.  If you go too far, the little bunker is there.  When the ball comes out of the bunker, you catch the slope and there's no way to stop it - certain bogey.
Home course is in Toronto, and the architect is a local by the name of Tom McBroom.

[henrye]

Oh, and on Joe's point, there is no real estate development associated with the course and 80% of the golfer's walk.  The bunker is not there for aesthetics.

[GPazin]

Maybe it's because I play most of my golf in hilly Pittsburgh, but here many times a bunker behind a green would simply stop a ball from getting further away, down hills and/or into woods.

The two main courses that I play here have a few bunkers behind, but not many. One's a modern course designed by Ron Forse called Deer Run. The 18th is a really difficult par 4 for us hacks. It's about 420, the fairway drops off dramatically about 150 from the green, it's all valley to the green on the other side, so if you don't hit a pretty solid tee shot you're in trouble (& unfortunately they usually keep the course too soft). The green has a decent back to front slope with a bunker behind cut into a hillside behind the green, so you have a decent chance at having a downhill stance/lie in a bunker with the green running away from you. I never understood why it wasn't the number one handicap hole until JohnV explained to me that the 18th is pretty muich never the number one handicap hole for reasons that are obvious to people smarter than me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shooter,

So, you've never been long on # 14 at Seminole have you ?

Joe Hancock,

Is the bunker invisible to the golfer, but visible to the passing motorist ?

Why is it eye candy if it's immediately adjacent to the rear of the green ?  Doesn't its proximity to the green provide sufficient strategic merit ?

George Pazin,

In that case it sounds like a bunker to the rear of the green would serve two functions, tactical and practical.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I have no problem, and actually like, a bunker out of sight from time to time. I also agree that there my be situations such as you've mentioned that these "hidden backside" bunkers would help the golfer.

I was thinking back to eastern NC, land of Weyerhauser and many golf course communities. It seemed to me that there was almost always a "backside bunker" on the entrance drive into the clubhouse area. The Emerald in New Bern, NC, Cypress Landing in Washington, NC both come to mind.

I suppose, in hindsight, I should have given examples to your question and focused on architectural reasons...and maybe all developements are ahead of their time architecturally...for the use of the "backside bunker"!

Joe

[David_Elvins]

As an extension to Patrick's original question, I have often thought that, IN GENERAL, the "golden age" architects payed a lot closer attention to creating intersting hazards, contours etc, in the area behind the green than the more recent architects.  Can anyone who has played enough courses to know, offer a more qualified view on this?  It just seems that there are less interesting back pin positions on newer courses.

It could possibly be that in the "olden days" more balls ended up past the green.  The ball travelled alot lower and an approach that caught the hard green instead of the softer fairway would bounce through the green.  Whereas in more modern courses the emphasys is on clearing hazards in front of greens.  Most challenging pin positions are located just over these hazards and greens are bigger, meaning a player can over club by one club and still be on the green.  I havent seen many challenging back pin positions on modern courses.  Does this make sense?

[TEPaul]

Bunkers behind greens, sometimes covering the entire rear, sometimes not were quite common with Donald Ross.

In my opinion, there were distinct tactical and practical reasons for their placement. Gulph Mills had six of them on the last seven holes originally! All of them were obsoleted over time, although basically their depressions were left (or the sand was still there if you dig down).

With our in progress Hanse course restoration all of them are being restored!

None of them were visible to the golfer approaching the green for fairly obvious reasons of topography (uphill approaches to greens, back to front green slope etc).

In my opinion, they all served specific purposes (in Ross's mind). Three of them served as bunkers directly behind what Ross call "green kickups" that was unpinnable green space in the rear of two par 5s and one long par 4 to slow running approaches into the greens which also served to filter the ball backwards (if judged correctly) toward the pinnable space below.

Clearly the intention of these rear bunkers (all of which are quite flat) was to catch balls that ran too hard and fast up and over the "kick up". From the rear bunker obviously the recovery shot back down the "kick up" to the pin was very tricky and depending on the pin location (and the green speeds) a bogie is likely!

The other four holes and greens probably utilized the rear bunkers more as "safety" bunkers! One to catch balls from running onto the next tee close behind. The second to catch balls from running on into OB toward the railroad tracks behind #16 and the third to catch ball almost getting next to the clubhouse on #18. The one on #12, a par 5 (the second half of the hole having been rerouted), was originally basically the same function as #18 to catch balls running over the green. On #12, even in it's rerouted form, Gil restored this rear bunker anyway!! The last one is very small and almost an afterthought behind #17 but when you walk up #18 and look back at #17 green it looks very neat now up into the back slope of #17!

At Rolling Rock (Ross 1917) the other day I counted three of these rear bunkers on the first four holes all of which have been obsoleted although the bunker cavities are very clear and definable! I would recommend they be restored! None are remotely visible to the golfer approaching the hole.

The dictate or formula that bunkers MUST be visible is something some of the old architects may have mentioned and written about but CLEARLY they never stuck to that dictate with certain bunkers.

When it comes to bunker visibility we should understand exactly where they were coming from. Almost never did they place a bunker on a downslope, where it wasn't visible to the golfer on the tee in range of a heroic tee shot that was hit to take a risk for an ideal reward placement!

That only makes commonsense! But for approaching shots that were clearly overrunning greens and such visibility was obviously not essential or even remotely necessary. In some ways those rear bunker that weren't visible may have been doing the overrunning shot a favor!

But the logic of Ross's bunkering behind greens that utilized the very interesting greenspace "kick up" feature only makes perfect compensating sense when you consider the shots involved!

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I think, as the game transitioned from along the ground, to aerial, AND with the advent of irrigation systems, the propensity for balls to go long, decreased substantially.

I think TEPaul is correct is his assessment.

If FAST & FIRM conditions ever become the norm again, perhaps these features will be restored, or incorporated in more designs.

At my club in New Jersey, an architect recently advocated filling in all of these bunkers.  Not surprisingly, I strenuously resisted any attempt to eradicate these distinctive bunkers, which ADD dramatic STRATEGY to rear pin positions.

[TEPaul]

Actually, not that it directly relates to rear bunkers, but one of Jack Nicklaus's pet peeves when he first got into architecture was that most handicap players NEVER hit ENOUGH club when approaching greens!

Since modern age courses were putting most of the hazard features in front of greens (for aerial shots) Nicklaus felt it prudent to put areas BEHIND greens that were far easier to recover from than the fronting bunkers and such were!

His whole intention was to encourage handicap golfers to hit ENOUGH club and if they did and went over some greens he intended to give them a form of architectural "pass on penalty".

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Wasn't there someone from the dead architects society that was against bunkers behind the green because it discouraged aggressive play at the back pin areas?  I thought it was Thomas.

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

I know of 1-2 specific instances of someone with power to influence architecture who firmly believed in what you just said about architectural things that did not encourage aggressive play to back pin locations!

It was William Fownes of Oakmont in his capacity as a member of Pine Valley's all-important 1921 Advisory Committee whose mission it was to "finish" Pine Valley (but only considering the known vision and plans of Crump) after Crump died prematurely in 1918.

Fownes was the most vocal of the committee in criticizing Crump's original #9 green (which has since been redesigned by Perry Maxwell) and the fact it had a very shallow back shelf! He, as did many others, felt it was virtually impossible to aggressively get a ball to that back shelf pin without going over the hill and down into #18 fairway.

However, the far scarier recommendation of Fownes's was that #1 green was a very poor design in that it discouraged golfers from going aggressively at back pins! He felt the green should be turned around and have the back wide and maybe the front much less so!!

Thankfully, the 1921 Advisory Committee did not take his recommendation on that or one of the most unusual, and one of the best strategic greens and approach shot options (and one of the most dangerous) in the entire world would have been lost!

[A_Clay_Man]

Pete Dye uses small pot bunkers hidden from view near backs of greens very effectively. Specifically #2 at BWR and some other holes on the original course. Whenever I see them I always think how cute and whenever I find one, I love the challenge.

Since you asked for new courses I can tell you Dick Daley was hoping I would hit one long on one of the backnine par 5's at Wid Horse. It has a bunker behind the firm fast green that is bound and determined to catch any and all aggresively played shots.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Let's see...  No. 2 at The Ocean Course, No. 4, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, No. 13 and No. 16...

[ChipOat]

TEPaul:

Hugh Wilson must have thought about being rewarded for hitting enough club before Nicklaus.  The long holes at Merion are usually more easily "chipped to" from behind the green than in front.  #18 is the clearest example of this although the same concept on #6 may have been neutered by today's green speeds.

[Tom Doak]

Certainly watering the ---- out of greens in modern times has discounted the value of bunkers behind greens, and therefore their use by modern architects.

Also, golfers' clamor for every bunker to be visible has worked against these hazards.  (Those Trent Jones "flash bunkers" behind greens are pointless as hazards, because they seldom leave a difficult recovery.)

Combining the two factors above, and Donald Ross's argument about discouraging bold play, I've rarely built hazards behind greens.  (In fact, I've more often put chipping areas behind greens than hazards.)  But I have done a couple of really good holes with trouble behind.  That pot bunker on the 7th green at High Pointe is still the making of one of my best holes (even if it doesn't see so much play now that the course isn't firm).  We also put bunkers behind several greens at Pacific Dunes -- 1, 3, 4, 8, 16 and 18 -- and some of them are real doozies.  Texas Tech will have some, too, since it's a windy environment.

I've often hedged on whether to restore the back bunkers on Macdonald/Raynor courses.  The cavities are still there, but why spend the money to put sand back in them?  You can't see them, and for good players it's a tougher recovery shot without the sand.

[RJ_Daley]

Adam, that would be #14 Wild Horse.  One doesn't see it till almost standing on the green.  That set up behind the green bears some similarity to Tom Doaks #7 High Pointe.  

[JohnV]

Nicklaus has one behind the 11th at the TPC at Snoqualamie Ridge that can't be seen from the fairway.  When I played the green was quite firm and I found myself in it.

I can vouch that the bunker behind the 8th at Pacific Dunes is a real doozie as Tom stated.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

I have little doubt Hugh Wilson probably did think of that before Nicklaus (although I believe Hugh stopped breathing before Jack started breathing) but then the question becomes; "Does Jack know who Hugh was and if so does he know what Hugh did in detail?"

It occurs to me that someone on this site once claimed that Jack once asked Pete Dye; "Who the hell is this guy C.B. MacDonald you're referring to?"

I don't know if that's true but if it is that would be quite discouraging!

[Jerry Kluger]

It seems to me from this discussion that a bunker behind a green is primarily there to deal with an overly aggressive shot at a pin set on a shelf at the back of a green. To me I thnk that playing out of a well shaped bunker is a far more attractive proposition than playing out of the rough in trying to recover to a pin set on a shelf at the back of the green. I think today we are seeing more close-cut chipping areas around the back of greens rather than a bunker as today's architect gives us more options in trying to recover from being overly aggressive.

[Tom Doak]

Jerry,

Some of those bunkers (7 at High Pointe, 8 at Pacific Dunes) are there to make you think about aiming to a different part of the green, or to scare you about being aggressive in going toward the green.  I've only gone into the bunker at High Pointe a couple of times, but I'm scared of it every time I play the hole.  In that respect, hidden bunkers are great because they don't scare anyone who hasn't seen the course before.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry K & Tom Doak,

Which do you find more difficult, recovering from a bunker located at the rear of the green, to a back pin position, or recovering from a chipping area located at the rear of the green to back pin positions, or heavy rough located at the rear of the green, to back pin positions ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()