News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Random Bunkering
« on: August 05, 2010, 09:34:43 AM »
I've seen two references to random bunkering over the past few days.

The first was on a Nebraska National thread from 2009, reply #4:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38363.0/

The second is from Ran's writeup on Banff Springs, caption for the second photo of the 15th hole:

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/canada/banffsprings1/banffsprings000262

Obviously, in these two instances, the idea of random bunkering are quite different, with NN being more of a minimalist/lay-of-the-land issue (Sand Hills, Ballyneal, The Old Course, etc), while at BS they were obviously created.  In the minimalist sense, it would seem that the random bunkering generally gets worked strategically into the routing and thus become less random in the final layout.

Some questions from the less informed (particularly for the unnatural versions)...
  • examples of good random bunkering?
  • examples of bad random bunkering?
  • can random bunkers be built today due to high maintenance costs to keep them up at a non-natural site?

Ben

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2010, 09:42:04 AM »
Good random bunkering - The Old Course

EIGCA graduate Nick Norton is keen to explore "The Chaos theory as applied to the strategy of golf holes". I'd be right behind him given the chance.

Take out your masterplan, put a blindfold on and make 80 dots anywhere. Then build bunkers where you placed the dots. Kind of like pin the tail on the donkey.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2010, 10:19:01 AM »
Random Bunkers are at best a waste of time and money on a golf course. If they do not act as a hazard then they should not be there. 

Hazards should be placed to meet the golfer, face on and to test his skill and intelligence, otherwise why have a designer and incur that additional expense too. 

Everything has a purpose on a golf course (except carts and their tracks, perhaps distance markers etc., etc.) - come on guys if it came from Scotland we don't like wasting our money if the things have no use.

So Random be gone let's get down to basic and make courses with traps and challenges or have we all become too soft ;)

Melvyn

« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 10:35:36 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2010, 10:47:16 AM »
Melvyn,

From a personal point of view, I actually agree with you. I don't like overbunkering and therefore prefer (if possible) that every bunker have a definite strategic purpose...

But I do love the idea of complete randomness causing strategy in its own right. Do you think every bunker at The Old Course was planned for its strategic value? Of course not...

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2010, 10:53:28 AM »
It may be of some interest that the guide used for couse rating (the ratings used for handicap purposes, not lists of bests and worsts) is inconsistent with a notion of random bunkering.  Among the criteria are a measurement of the distance fairway bunkers are from the appropriate tees to determine whether they add difficulty as well as the proximity of grrenside bunkers to the putting surfaces.  Depth etc are also factored but additional random bunkers are not given any real weight.  Of course these ratings do not pretend to measure strategic appeal.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2010, 10:59:03 AM »
It may be of some interest that the guide used for couse rating (the ratings used for handicap purposes, not lists of bests and worsts) is inconsistent with a notion of random bunkering.  Among the criteria are a measurement of the distance fairway bunkers are from the appropriate tees to determine whether they add difficulty as well as the proximity of grrenside bunkers to the putting surfaces.  Depth etc are also factored but additional random bunkers are not given any real weight.  Of course these ratings do not pretend to measure strategic appeal.

This is like me being told (on more than one occasion) during my studies that I always have to place bunkers between 270 yards and 290 yards from the back tees.

I'm not buying that I'm afraid.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2010, 11:25:10 AM »

Take out your masterplan, put a blindfold on and make 80 dots anywhere. Then build bunkers where you placed the dots. Kind of like pin the tail on the donkey.

Tried that once....best bunkered parking lot in the biz....
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2010, 11:25:22 AM »
Ally;  I am with you on this one but for those who want a course with a high course rating the system militates those types of remarks.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2010, 11:30:00 AM »
In all seriousness, there were many seemingly random bunkers in the Golden Age.  I think they seemed random because there were more top shot bunkers, carry bunkers, and flanking bunkers in general.  Each served a purpose, but the proliferation made them seem random, esp. after increased length made some obsolete.

The cost conscious era of 1960-1990 or so caused elimination of bunkers that saw too little "action." (Oddly, bunkers that saw "too much action" were often eliminated, too!)

The good times of the 1990's caused gca's to think the cost of bunkers didn't matter again.  The advent of perfect bunker conditions, liners, and the post 2000 recession have superintendents questioning those costs again.  Bunker removal projects are keeping many gca's alive and fed.

Short version - random bunkers are so 1990's (and 1920's)  Precise bunkering is so 1970 and 2010. 

In the end, its all about money over art.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2010, 11:30:17 AM »

This is like me being told (on more than one occasion) during my studies that I always have to place bunkers between 270 yards and 290 yards from the back tees.

I never ever told you that but I can guess certain lecturers that did such as the one that said that all of his courses were always designed to be Par 72.

Play a Colt course and you will notice a lot of random bunkering that sits perfectly into the landscape yet does not seem to have any reason to it other than the bunker looks good in that location.

I would like someone to define "strategic" bunkering.  What the hell is that and who is it for?  What distance is the correct distance?
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2010, 11:47:52 AM »

Ally

I think that pre 1893 TOC was set up to use her bunkers. Money or time would not have been wasted on decorative bunkers pre that date. They worked as traps/hazards in those days.

Come the reverse play some are a little out of line and I believe some have gone as no longer an effective hazard, yet some still catch the wild ball. 

Nevertheless, we are talking about a course set up and developed in its major years to play the opposite way so as its TOC we should make allowances after all she was the First of her kind.

Melvyn

Ben Voelker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2010, 11:51:19 AM »
In all seriousness, there were many seemingly random bunkers in the Golden Age.  I think they seemed random because there were more top shot bunkers, carry bunkers, and flanking bunkers in general.  Each served a purpose, but the proliferation made them seem random, esp. after increased length made some obsolete.

The cost conscious era of 1960-1990 or so caused elimination of bunkers that saw too little "action." (Oddly, bunkers that saw "too much action" were often eliminated, too!)

The good times of the 1990's caused gca's to think the cost of bunkers didn't matter again.  The advent of perfect bunker conditions, liners, and the post 2000 recession have superintendents questioning those costs again.  Bunker removal projects are keeping many gca's alive and fed.

Short version - random bunkers are so 1990's (and 1920's)  Precise bunkering is so 1970 and 2010. 

In the end, its all about money over art.

Jeff,

How does this work during the design process?  Are bunkers "lost" during intermediate reviews at owner request or are entire holes or routings changed by these restrictions?  Or, are the terms set by the client at the start of the project (i.e. the amount of bunkering he/she wants)?

I have no doubts this is not an easy answer, but I find this very interesting.

Ben

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2010, 11:58:30 AM »

Ally

I think that pre 1893 TOC was set up to use her bunkers. Money or time would not have been wasted on decorative bunkers pre that date. They worked as traps/hazards in those days.

Come the reverse play some are a little out of line and I believe some have gone as no longer an effective hazard, yet some still catch the wild ball. 

Nevertheless, we are talking about a course set up and developed in its major years to play the opposite way so as its TOC we should make allowances after all she was the First of her kind.

Melvyn


If the Old Course was designed by Mother Nature and it's bunkering was the result of a natural occurance, would that not make it one of, if not the most, randomly bunkered courses in the world?

Is the difference that on older courses the routing was built around natural random hazzards, vs. today where the course is layed out then hazards are many times added later?
H.P.S.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2010, 12:04:33 PM »
Jeff,

Your last post makes plenty of sense.... It's really interesting tracking the evolution of the Irish links courses how the bunker positioning has evolved too, especially in relation to top-shot, cross and flanking bunkers.... Take Portmarnock - The 17th hole currently has eleven bunkers (which is a lot)... What people don't realise is that it once had 37 bunkers. It was virtually like Pine Valley playing from island of turf to island of turf. Very penal. Most of these were of course removed due to trends in design but also due to cost cutting during the period of 1930's, 1940's...

Brian,

You are of course right - The same proponents of 270-290 yards were the same proponents of Par 72...

Ally


PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2010, 12:06:03 PM »
mustn't some of the 967 (!!?) bunkers a W Strais be considered random?

I wonder how much they'd save in maintenance if the let say, oh 300, just revert back to nature...
197 played, only 3 to go!!

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2010, 12:10:48 PM »
Pat

Pre Allan Robertson the course may be more prone to Mother Nature but the hand of man has had a major effect on the course. The major part of the works (not all) being from 1864 to 1890 under the guidance of a Tom Morris.  Man reclaimed much of the Bruce Embankment, well Bruce did, but again his work was taken over by Tom Morris, hence the new 1st Hole and 18th.



Also due to the tides at the other end of the course a serious war was wages to retain a couple of the Greens which at one time had the Eden washing away the soil under the Greens. Thanks to the combination of Man and the silting of the Eden the Greens were saved circa 1880's, but it took nearly 15-20 years.

19th Century Man has shaped TOC, not just Nature.

Melvyn
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 12:20:59 PM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2010, 12:16:39 PM »

This is like me being told (on more than one occasion) during my studies that I always have to place bunkers between 270 yards and 290 yards from the back tees.

I never ever told you that but I can guess certain lecturers that did such as the one that said that all of his courses were always designed to be Par 72.

Play a Colt course and you will notice a lot of random bunkering that sits perfectly into the landscape yet does not seem to have any reason to it other than the bunker looks good in that location.

I would like someone to define "strategic" bunkering.  What the hell is that and who is it for?  What distance is the correct distance?

A Strategic Bunker is one that someone wants. A Random Bunker is one that someone wants to elimiinate.  Unfortunately one-dimensional thinkers don't see many Strategic Bunkers as really being Penal Bunkers (because Penal Bunkers are out of vogue).  Miss the fairway, you're penalized, miss a green, you're penalized.  The Stategy is not be be Penalized. If you say Strategic, well that infers thoughtfulness, and we can't despise the use of one's brain now, can we?  Equipment advaces will strive to change just how penal/strategic a bunker is and for whom.  We try to equalize the game for players with vast dscrepancies in playing abilities by adjsuting the courses length and in some cases, width.  But, due to there fixed positions, bunkers that are effective for one category of player will, by definition, be ineffective - thus Random to all others.
Coasting is a downhill process

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2010, 12:30:39 PM »

Pat

When looking at 19th Century inland courses many bunkers were added later up to 3 months after the course was opened. It was not just bunkers but also Turf Dykes (to resemble the undulations of a links course). Some of the old turf dykes still remain on quite a few courses, one being what is now Tarland GC which was the Earl of Aberdeen private course in the early 1890's.

Adding traps or hazards is nothing new.

Melvyn

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2010, 12:36:33 PM »
All I want with my random bunkering is for the designer to consider the effect its placement has in relation to the rest of the hole and ensure that the playing options are thought out.... Therefore turning the random bunker in to a strategic bunker... It's all just words Brian - you are right.

I'm going back to pin the tail on the donkey... Maybe that's how Norman ended up with his bunker in the 12th green at Doonbeg?

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2010, 01:47:18 PM »
 But, due to there fixed positions, bunkers that are effective for one category of player will, by definition, be ineffective - thus Random to all others.
So therefore our bunkering can be strategic on one day and random on another day. Which makes a bunkering scheme that fits the landscape even more important than placing bunker in relation to distances from the tee.  If a bunker sits or fits into the landscape and is close enough to the line of play (not way out in the rough) then it will be in play (strategic) for some golfers during its lifetime.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2010, 01:51:19 PM »
I'm going back to pin the tail on the donkey... Maybe that's how Norman ended up with his bunker in the 12th green at Doonbeg?
And that is the only poor bunker on the whole course in my opinion.  If he had made it visible from the fairway then I would start to understand it.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2010, 02:08:08 PM »
Random bunkering in this day and age is at best silly unless you are on sand to start with, then its best left as waste scaggy areas anyway not true sand bunkers. Sand bunkers are expensive in most areas, the best bunker sand in the UK is $60 per tonne to many parts of the UK.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2010, 02:19:20 PM »
In all seriousness, there were many seemingly random bunkers in the Golden Age.  I think they seemed random because there were more top shot bunkers, carry bunkers, and flanking bunkers in general.  Each served a purpose, but the proliferation made them seem random, esp. after increased length made some obsolete.

The cost conscious era of 1960-1990 or so caused elimination of bunkers that saw too little "action." (Oddly, bunkers that saw "too much action" were often eliminated, too!)

The good times of the 1990's caused gca's to think the cost of bunkers didn't matter again.  The advent of perfect bunker conditions, liners, and the post 2000 recession have superintendents questioning those costs again.  Bunker removal projects are keeping many gca's alive and fed.

Short version - random bunkers are so 1990's (and 1920's)  Precise bunkering is so 1970 and 2010.  

In the end, its all about money over art.

Jeff,

How does this work during the design process?  Are bunkers "lost" during intermediate reviews at owner request or are entire holes or routings changed by these restrictions?  Or, are the terms set by the client at the start of the project (i.e. the amount of bunkering he/she wants)?

I have no doubts this is not an easy answer, but I find this very interesting.

Ben

Ben,

I was really thinking about bunker changes in the golf course existence process over time, but I get your question.

All clients vary of course, but us mere mortal architects are often given a target square footage of bunkers which we can use as we like.  That number (for me) has come from developers standard criteria, or a suggestion of the feasibility consultant that a public course ought to have no more than xx bunkers (usually from 20-45 with severe warnings of the business consequences of having more than 50 or 60)

After the general direction is given, I only rarely have a client question the preliminary design.  Sometimes, if a golf pro is on the committee, they may question certain fw bunkers that aren't 270-290 yds.  Some GM's will go through and take out all bunkers on the right front of greens to speed play, etc.  Everyone has their perspective.  Even more get discussed in the field as most folks really can't envison it until then.

Philosophically, I am kind of a tweener between the strict LZ only bunkers and randomness.  To start, if I have a client imposed limit, I like to put bunkers where they serve many functions - hazard, targets, aesthetics, safety, etc., to get the most value out of each.  I would have to think a bit about putting one 80 yards off the tee "just because."  That said, one of my laments is the objection to bunkers about 30 yards in front of the green.  Its amazing how often a bunker there completes an aesthetic composition, and for so many, still serve as hazards because they use the run up game.  But, they are discouraged often as not coming into play, and causing difficult long bunker recovery shots for the type of player who has the most trouble with them.

While bunkering is a complicated and yet intuitive process, that often starts with looking at the green first, generally for FW bunkers, I start with the LZ, adjust for elevation, wind, slope, etc., just to make sure that its not a hole where the golfers will really tend to hit it only 260 because of natural conditions.  I have a couple dozen generalized strategic tee shot ideas (in one of the Paul Daley books if you care) and start looking for landforms that support those ideas on different holes.

If it happens that I calculate the LZ at a particular distance, but the natural landform for the bunker I envision falls somewhat differently, then I place the bunker there, knowing that not all people hit the "average" distance to the LZ point and that on any given tee shot, no one hits it perfectly every time, either.  Thus, while a bunker is most likely to come into play as envisioned by the gca if placed near the typical LZ's, its just as likely to come into play for others if not at some prescribed distance.  

It is probably a good thing if the long holes all have bunkers at slightly varying effective distances from the tee, not to mention, some should be carry bunkers, flank bunkers, distance limiting bunkers, etc.  I also take comfort in the fact that a bunker can cath a tee shot on the fly, or after 20 yards of roll, and really serves to guard many different tee shot lengths wherever it is placed.

They all come into play for someone.  Using PGA Tour Shotlink data to locate bunkers only really works on the PGA Tour, a very controlled and consistent group of players, and even they have some variation.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2010, 02:22:00 PM »
Jeff,

Great post. As always.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Random Bunkering
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2010, 03:59:40 PM »
I'm going back to pin the tail on the donkey... Maybe that's how Norman ended up with his bunker in the 12th green at Doonbeg?
And that is the only poor bunker on the whole course in my opinion.  If he had made it visible from the fairway then I would start to understand it.

Agreed 100%
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 04:08:33 PM by Ally Mcintosh »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back