[Mike_Young]

The bunker.....why?...the only natural bunkers exist in land that is a deep sand base yet almost every course built uses bunkers as the main hazard.  My personal opinion is that it has evolved due to the contrast in color of sand vs. grass.....a mixture of tall grass hollows and short grass areas create a much better defense around green complexes but we continue to use the bunker.  In their very basic form they can be used to determine angles, carry length and hole set-up.....all determined by angle of placement to the shot, distance placement and depth.
So having said all of the above a very simple crater type structure will suffice BUT the bunker has become an artform and maybe the most distinctive artform in determining an architect's style as he evolves etc....(does that make sense).....did the ODG's really focus on the bunker as art back in their day or were many of the ragged edged bunkers evolutions that constantly changed and became what we relish out of maintenance conditions of the time?  I don't know.....should the bunker carry so much weight in determining the golf course....it character and even the skills of the architect ...did the ODG focus as much on his bunker style as the architect of today?  .....bunkers are killing maintenance budgets....and short grass works much better for defense IMHO

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - a very big topic, so I'll just mention one idea, i.e. that a fundamental change came about when fairway bunkers become predominately flanking features, when they started being used mainly to punish a wayward shot left or right (or at least to add interest and challenge to the drive, left and right) instead of being used as 'in-line' features to create angles and engender choices.  In the latter case, it makes sense (and I think the eye accepts) having a sand hazard even if sand is clearly not a naturally occuring element. In the former, sand bunkers stick out more because the eye recognizes that just about anything else (and anything that's more naturally occuring e.g. grassy depressions, fescue, water) would work just as well.

Peter 

[Greg Murphy]

Mike,

I agree with your visual contrast theory. Something stirs in us when we see woods or water, a sunset or fall color. Or a bear as we round the curve in a trail. Unless the light is low, turf grass lacks that stirring action. It is because of this capacity to stir emotion that the bunker has, as you say, "become an art form and maybe the most distinctive art form in determining an architect's style as he evolves".

As a bonus, sand provides a different texture to play from, adding an element to shot making, adding interest to the playing of the game. Simple crater type structures may be enough to defend greens (providing even greater defence than sand), but throw sand in the odd one and I think the architect has done something more than simply put up a defence. He's introduced a different type of shot. And a different type of look. I used to see sense in those who rail against course set ups where if you're good enough the smart play is to aim for sand rather than other grassy areas surrounding the green to increase the odds of getting up and down. No more. Sand ought to be different than turf but there is no reason to outlaw circumstances where turf is tougher than sand.

Should the bunker carry so much weight? That is a question I have often asked myself. But I have concluded that trying to argue it shouldn't matter is like trying to argue that an ocean or mountain or valley or stream shouldn't matter. They do. The trick is for the architect to not over-do the bunker and the art may be in finding just the right look and number, location and balance, both from a visual and playing context as well as with maintenance in mind.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
A great topic on which H. Colt and C. Alison once stated, "It would be necessary to write a very long book, copiously illustrated with diagrams of famous and infamous holes, in order to deal exhaustively with the placement of bunkers."  I happen to agree with him   but it will be interesting to see what comments you get.
Mark

[Norbert P]

  I agree that long grass hollows should be used more but they do slow play in regards to searching for the ball.  The hollows cannot be very big and the grass has to be mowed to a proper height that balances hazard with findabilty. 

  We had a nasty one greenside on the 12th at Heron Lakes' Great Blue (RTJ Jr),  but it slowed play so much it has since been shaved.

[Tim Bert]

Mike - For what its worth, I love the giant grass bunker type area you have on the right side of the 12th fairway at Longshadow.  Depending upon what kind of roll you get you might get through it and get an extra boost down the hill, or you could get stuck right against the lip of the thing - a true 1/2 stroke to stroke penalty where I hit it during one of my rounds at the Dixie Cup.

I'd love to see a few more of those rather than sand everywhere. 

[BCrosby]

Mike -

As you note and as others have noted, this is a very big topic.

Also as you note, there are really two, distinct issues. One is the look of bunkers and the other is the logic behind where you locate them.

People are generally more interested in one of those topics than the other. I come down on the "logic of where you locate them" side. I don't think the "look" of a bunker raises very many interesting issues. You like it, I don't. Hard to have much to say to each other beyond that. You can have interesting arguments about bunker placements, however.  

That same sort of split in approach to bunkers has been around for a very long time. Hutchinson had a lot to say about the look of bunkers but relatively little to say about the logic of how they ought to be arranged. OTOH, John Low wrote almost exclusively about the principles that ought to guide the location of bunkers and had almost nothing to say about their appearance.

But if they are two distinct issues, I would think that practicing architects don't have the luxury of focusing on just one of them. Though I'd guess in actual practice that architects get more comments and criticism about bunker aesthetics than about bunker placements.


Bob  

[John Mayhugh]

The ones on 18 at LS are a most effective hazard as well.

[Sean_A]

The art of the bunker is knowing when they aren't necessary or another hazard will do just as well if not better.

Also, worrying about the look of bunkers (as a contrast or whatever) holds back their true worth.   

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Agreed. The threshold question for any bunker is "Why is it there and not nothing?"

My sense is that these days it takes more architectural courage not to build a bunker than otherwise.

Bob

[Greg Murphy]

Messrs. Arble & Crosby,
 
Might you be focusing too narrowly on the dangers of going OVER the top, rather than the art of getting TO the top with artful bunkering? Take any revered course. Remove all its bunkers. What are you left with? More or less?

[Richard Chamberlain]

Mike

I've recently done a couple of talks on Bunkers to the Aussie Superintendents. Whats earmarked for an hour forum could easily spin out into a full day of debate.

I reckon a lot of the problems with over bunkering came when we started building them on clay sites. On sand the original hazards seemed smaller but a large catchment for balls. When in clay the catchment of balls also means the catchment of water, which ultimately creates drainage and erosion issues. I reckon this is why 4 are built to do the job that one can do on a sand site.

There are some great new products around at the moment with regard to bunker fabrics that reduce erosion and contamination, whilst there is a brand new product i've seen called sportcrete which has huge potential. If they can seriously reduce the draianage problems encountered in bunkers them maybe these things can be treated as a proper drainage sump and 4 bunkers can start to be throttled back to one again.

[Bill_McBride]

The ones on 18 at LS are a most effective hazard as well.

Not to mention the monster on #17!    Anyone have a photo to post?

[Eric Smith]

The ones on 18 at LS are a most effective hazard as well.

Not to mention the monster on #17!    Anyone have a photo to post?

John has a good one of 17.  Here's another from Adam Russell's thread back in March.

[Mike_Young]

Not to promote but here is a better picture of 17 Long Shadow

What I am asking is will the artisitc bunkers of this period prevail or will the evolve as the economy changes and either fill -in or become simpler.....and as Bob says...I think in so many cases less will be more.....

[Bill Brightly]

At Saucon Valley, each of the three courses has one hole with no greenside bunkers. Each of these holes is defended with thick rough and swales (that look as if they could easily be converted to sand bunkers) and I am always intrigued when playing these holes.

Seems to me that the swales defend the green as least as well as sand. The slopes repel shots, and the thick rough makes it at least as hard to get up and down, especially when you factor in the inconsistency of rough lies versus sand lies, which generally are predictable.

Add in the unusual look to an approach shot without familiar white sand, your eye is now drawn to the grass swales which you might not have noticed before.  I think this adds to a golfer's discomfort. So I think "bunkerless" green complexes are not used enough.



This GCA'r is way right of the fairway

[Sean_A]

Mike

I've recently done a couple of talks on Bunkers to the Aussie Superintendents. Whats earmarked for an hour forum could easily spin out into a full day of debate.

I reckon a lot of the problems with over bunkering came when we started building them on clay sites. On sand the original hazards seemed smaller but a large catchment for balls. When in clay the catchment of balls also means the catchment of water, which ultimately creates drainage and erosion issues. I reckon this is why 4 are built to do the job that one can do on a sand site.

There are some great new products around at the moment with regard to bunker fabrics that reduce erosion and contamination, whilst there is a brand new product i've seen called sportcrete which has huge potential. If they can seriously reduce the draianage problems encountered in bunkers them maybe these things can be treated as a proper drainage sump and 4 bunkers can start to be throttled back to one again.

Greg

The quesion isn't wether or not there should be bunkers, but what purpose do bunkers serve and what other feature could be used instead of bunkers.  I see far too may courses where the bunekring merely serves as a road map to the green.  This sort of thing is fine for a hole or two but it just isn't good enough to repeat over and over.  IMO, archies should be looking for ways not to use bunkers.  I bet if they do they will create a more imaginative and thought provoking design.

Ciao

[Emil Weber]

Although I do agree with almost all the above comments I must confess that I care a lot about bunker styles. The different bunkers, their look is what got me interested i Golf Course Architecture. Only THEN did I buy a book on GCA and that was when I understood a golf course needs more than just great bunkers. Seriously, there wa a time when I judged golf courses on their bunkers.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()