News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
installed to present a problem or a mode of play. William S. Flynn 1927




  When bunkers are placed to penalize they become subject to the increased length issue. Either move the tee back or move the bunker farther.


But if you placed bunkers where the land dictates to “present a problem or a mode of play” you don’t need to move them.


Excuse me for calling this genius.


So either the random links bunkering or the thoughtful way makes sense. The sight bunker or the penal one are of a lesser quality.





AKA Mayday

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mayday

I don't buy into random bunkering.  If random bunkering really exists to any real degree why pay an archie?  I work under the theory that if bunkers are used sparingly, with purpose and fairly equally for greens and fairways, then perhaps 50% (probably a bit less) will effect any one golfer on any given day with maybe 30% (mostly greens bunkers) as core trouble bunkers.  The best bunker schemes will see different bunkers make up that 50% each time out.  You get onto places such as Muirfield and the 150 bunkers leaves probably 75 (to me almost always 25-60 is probably the ideal total number!) in play (or more) on any given day.  IMO, that is too one dimensional when there are so many other features archies can employ to balance the challenge. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0

Was trying to explain this the other day on a radio interview.  You can place bunkers to suggest a certain shot type, or more specifically, set the target angle.  As I have mentioned here, if the wind blows left, the green angles left, most players capable of doing so are going to draw the ball, etc.  Even the RTJ pinch bunkers at the fw landing zone suggest a less than full power swing, or less than full driver, almost as much as they are penal.


As to random bunkering, try selling that to most of America's 15,000 course owners, given the maintenance costs these days.  They are all trying to reduce bunkers, and if they don't see at least a few rake marks a week, they consider the bunker "under used" and not worth the effort.  Oddly, many also want to take out the most heavily seen bunkers in the name of pace of play.  Have never figured out exactly what the "right" amount of play is. :o


Frankly, although OHCC can afford it, I found myself wondering what the point of Gil adding fw bunkers on the par 3 9th was?  There is a way to stagger bunkers in an attractive pattern without getting too far from the prime landing zones.  The best bunkers serve play purposes first, aesthetics 1A, and hopefully those and a few other functions besides just looking great.


As to moving them out, yes, especially for a course like OHCC who host tournaments, but not really necessary for the other 14,800 American courses, is it?  Sometimes you can add one at 290-320, and other times, that isn't worth it, as you can add mounds, contours, whatever, or narrow the fairway if you want to stop the long hitters (yes, in those cases, I rarely see anyone thinking in terms of creating a shot type for a 320 yard drive.....It happens, like the CC Plantation course.



Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
I’m not advocating for random bunkering. I’m just suggesting that where they naturally arise they make sense.
I’m mostly saying that trying to design fairway bunkers to penalize is silly.
AKA Mayday

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0

Not to parse words, but to clarify, you mean where a natural bunker site presents itself, as opposed to a truly natural bunker, i.e., sheep grazing and a blowout? I presume the former, and I doubt too many architects force bunkers in other places, at least bad natural places just to get them at a certain distance. 


If the intended LZ is on a downslope, its a hard place to put a bunker, but there are other things that can be done, including, leaving it alone, LOL.  I even doubt that any of us obsess at putting the fw sand bunkers at exactly the DL, knowing no one really hits it exactly that distance, and also accounting for wind variability.  In other words, with a staked DL at 267 yards/800 feet, and a natural upslope perfect for a bunker at 290, it is easy to justify that SB as dual purpose - target for most, hazard for long hitters.  Ditto if the natural bunkers spot is at 250.  Carry bunker for long hitters, lateral bunker for most, etc.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
When I speak of random bunkering it is either those created by animals or those that just look they belong there.


Fairway bunkers on both sides at the same distance would be a perfect example of what I find offensive.
AKA Mayday

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0

Mike,


I don't mind one hole with those, if the situation presents itself, but RTJ and Dick Wilson seemed to like them so much that they repeated them another 13 times per course (sometimes).  For that matter, I don't think any tee shot concept, say, the Cape, is so good it should be used more than once per course.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
When I speak of random bunkering it is either those created by animals or those that just look they belong there.

Fairway bunkers on both sides at the same distance would be a perfect example of what I find offensive.


I can understand using some natural pockets for sandy sites, especially if a bold or gathering bunker is created.  But I would also like to see many of these natural landforms left alone to do their job.  They add a bit of spice in that luck becomes more of a factor with fortunate, or not, kicks.  Bottom line, bunkers are over-rated and over-used.  I have said it before, but if each bunker required proper justification with the same reason for their use not used more than 3-4 times per round, courses would be better for it.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
I agree completely. I’m surprised that Flynn did not use fewer bunkers at greens based on his attitude about fairway bunkers.


I think he valued the visual aspects of bunkers more than the penal wanting them to affect your thinking.
AKA Mayday

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
I have always had the impression that bunkers like many other golf course features were there to present a 'sporting challenge'. It is a much better way of looking at a golf course making the unusual and quirky much more palatable.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is there a similarity with bunkering, especially fairway bunkering, to corners and straights and chicanes on a motor racing circuit, fences to be jumped by horses, flags to go between/around in skiing, hanging poles in canoeing etc etc.
Plot your track from point a to point b via points c, d and e etc?


An aside, what about very severe fairway bunkering and no greenside bunkering? Curious to know if such an approach has been attempted?


Atb

Tom Bacsanyi

  • Karma: +0/-0
One of my wild ideas is to build a bunkerless course and add bunkers over time.  Specifically where divots and wear start to show up the most.  This helps guarantee they'll be in play!
Don't play too much golf. Two rounds a day are plenty.

--Harry Vardon

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
One of my wild ideas is to build a bunkerless course and add bunkers over time.  Specifically where divots and wear start to show up the most.  This helps guarantee they'll be in play!


I would prefer that you put those bunkers just away from those divots in a place that looks like a bunker would fit naturally.
AKA Mayday

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1

Fairway bunkers on both sides at the same distance would be a perfect example of what I find offensive.


When we were building Sebonack I had bunkers right opposite one another on the 9th fairway and I was surprised to find out that Mr Nicklaus was adamantly opposed to doing that, ever.  I guess he played too many courses in the 1960's that were pinched at the landing area to take driver out of his hands.  He prefers the bunkers be staggered in all cases - though that can get repetitious.