Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ben Voelker 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/StAndrews-1.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
Great post. As always.
-
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%
-
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.
Jeff, as Brian said, thanks for that detailed answer... Do you really get a lot of objection for these approach bunkers?... That disappoints me. Can I just add a function of them that I see as even more important than the 2 you mention - Deception. Bunkers 30 yards short that have their sightlines tied in with the green surface are the ideal deceptive trick (regardless of all our distance aids)... I am a big fan...
-
The bunkers on the old course are not random at all
1) they are setup on the upswing of depressions facing the storm northeast winds... anybody who walk the course in early march with a storm approaching figures out the sheep knew what they were doing out there...
2) somebody did built the revetment for those bunkers... and maybe eliminate a few natural scrapes along the way...
I would prefer the word intelligently dispersed rather than random
-
Philippe,
You beat me to it. I agree with your idea of random bunkers not being random as such. They were surely originally a mixture of weather and wind direction and sheltered (or not) positions on the landscape. Do the bunkers that golfers on this website think look natural (random?) lie in these sort of locations and was this a deliberate effort on the part of the golf course architect?
Colin
-
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.
Jeff, as Brian said, thanks for that detailed answer... Do you really get a lot of objection for these approach bunkers?... That disappoints me. Can I just add a function of them that I see as even more important than the 2 you mention - Deception. Bunkers 30 yards short that have their sightlines tied in with the green surface are the ideal deceptive trick (regardless of all our distance aids)... I am a big fan...
Jeff and Ally,
I love these kinds of bunkers as well. I think they are more intimidating than a left or right bunker positioned right next to the green surface. Bunkers that I have had the most trouble with at courses I have played many times are approach bunkers.
With that said, I find the last point in Jeff's response very interesting. Do these kinds of approach bunkers have more of an impact on the bogey golfer than the scratch? The scratch golfer may have some issues with the line of sight and the feel for the distance, but will rarely be actually in the bunker, except maybe on a 3 shotter. The less skilled a golfer is, the more likely he will find this bunker and is left with an exceptionally difficult following shot.
-
Random bunkering...if done right...is one of the hardest things to do.
-
Ben,
Conventional wisdom says they do. Better players rarely miss a green by 30 yards. In theory, if a bogey player has come up short 30 yards, he is well on the way to a bogey already. The question is, under what theory of gca should he be put into a bunker, to increase the possibility of double, or given the difficulty of the long sand shot, triple?
In general, those bunkers make most sense short of driveable par 4 or reachable par 5 holes. Either that, or they have to be the super model of bunkers.
Paul,
Can a gca designed bunker really be random? Even if I throw the coins on the table (plan) I can't help but tweak the locations, such as if one falls in a hole, or thirty yards off the fw. And once I try to introduce a shred of logic to their placement, they are no longer technically random.
They are really placed "irregularly to replicate the supposed randomness of nature" but they are not random. You might call the beautiful locations of bunkers at Cypress Point a good example of random bunkering, but IMHO, they are really carefully located as per artistic princicples, not natural ones. Which is still better visually than locating them preciscely at 270-290 yards.
One famous gca told me he located bunkers in similar fashion and really only cared about getting the photographs. He figured many of his bunkers would be gone or modified in a few years time, but didn't really seem to care.
-
Jeff...I wish I had your talent to explain my point. ;)
-
Jeff
Yes there is no true random bunkering relative to the golf hole.
If the bunkering was all random at Sand Hills, the holes still conform to the bunkers.
Here is my suggestion to you to better randomize your bunkers:
Take 1/2 of your bunker budget.
Put them the best places you know using all your formulas.
Then take the rest of your bunker budget and have fun with them - some short, some long, some to double up the size you already made.
Whatever - just don't think about them as much - someone will find them.
Thats what the bunkers at Wolf Point look like.
30 are where they are supposed to be - landing zones & greensides.
The other 31 are willy nilly, and yet smart in artistic and maintenance and construction senses.
Some big, some small, 3 holes none, and 2 holes that share 1, one hole has just 1 (totals: 2 bunkers between 6 holes).
And there are 10 bunkers on #14 alone.
-
Mike,
I go through nearly exactly those histronics in design. It sounds like your formulas are very similar to mine.......I hate to have 2-3 bunkers per hole. I prefer some with none and one with 10 like you do. Again, similar formulas. And, if you have them after just a few course designs, imagine how forumulaic you might be after 50!
I also was brought up in the biz to distinguish a gca from a "player in the dirt" (like a Tour Pro) Design does mean more than art. It means applying some logic to maximize the value of every design element. The upshot is that even without budget concerns, it is possible to question every bunker and why it is placed where it is (in 99% of cases, yes, they are placed, or even at Sand Hills, the holes routed to the placement of natural bunkers) So, if in reviewing my design, I have used more than a few bunkers that don't provide full measure as hazard, target, looks, etc., I question whether I am a professional architect or just playing in the dirt.
In the end, not many of my clients would buy an explanation of "willy nilly" for the placement of bunkers, but you have been fortunate to start your career with a private owner who didn't ask many questions or put too many limitations on you, i.e., start with a dream project. Not many can say that!
-
I will add that I have been called back to several of my own and other courses on bunker removal and reduction projects, only solidfying my current opinion that every bunker ought to have a purpose (or many) to justify itself. This economy is the new normal (and reflects normal in most periods of gca) making "random" and "excessive" bunkering so 1990's in the eyes of most.
I love it, but am not sure we can justify it at this particular time.
-
I can't remember who it was that said it but they said something along the lines of no bunker is truly random if you find yourself in it.
Certainly some bunkers play more of a defining role in the strategy of a golf hole, but even that statement is rather weak.
And what I mean by that is take the average PGA tour event. Often the pros are rooting for their ball to get in a bunker because it's far more easy to extricate themselves from that than it is the rough.
Therefore, if a bunker doesn't impart fear, or impart a true "penalty" then how can it impact the strategy of a hole?
And this is why I think one of the integral elements of a bunker is that it impart fear. It must be scary looking, and it must impart a true penalty.
So, I think the aesthetics matter. And while surely some bunkers will catch more shots than others....very few bunkers are truly worthless because in the end I think they provide a psychological hazard.
-
Why do we always use the Gawdam PGA Tour to make examples here? They and the sub set of courses they use constitute maybe 0.00001% of golf. Irrelevant, I say.
That said, for the rest of us, it would seem that a bunker that imparts fear could actually dictate strategy TOO much, i.e., play safe. Strategic bunkers are generally (not always) benign enough that there is the possibility that you won't lose a stroke by challenging them. Think how you react to OB or water - you play away 99% of the time, at least if you are smart, or unless you are on a closing hole and absolutely need a mircale to win your $2 bet and are willing to risk a $4 golf ball to do it.
-
...or unless you are on a closing hole and absolutely need a mircale to win your $2 bet and are willing to risk a $4 golf ball to do it.
That line of thinking is entirely too lucid for this discussion board! ;D
-
I go through nearly exactly those histronics in design. It sounds like your formulas are very similar to mine......
Jeff
I only had one formula and it had nothing to do with bunkers and it wasn't that important.
Our bunker placement had more to do with me and Don in the field.
My above suggestion was a result of looking at what we did - unaware of how we did it.
Cheers
-
Mike,
Don't flatter yourself. We all have formulas, even if its only to say we don't have formulas.......Even Faz says that.
And just as there can be no random bunkers once you start thinking about them, there has to be a formula once you start thinking about how you approach the design process.......your conversion has already started. ;)
-
I've had several writers (including Ron Whitten) misinterpret what I've said to them on the subject of bunkers, and write that I believe in "random bunkering". I really don't.
I just think that the bunkers should be at different distances off the tees on different holes, so you don't penalize the guy who hits it 240 on every hole, and let off the guy who hits it 210 or 270.
With that philosophy, I look for good places in the terrain to place the bunkers. So, it might appear random that the 210-yard bunker is on the fifth hole instead of the tenth ... but there is always a reason it's on the fifth.
-
My personal bunker philosophy is to never build a bunker without a purpose...ie...not for effect...and if you have to think twice about whether its needed, don't put it in.....hardly a books worth of knowledge.
-
Surely any bunker that has been intentionally built either off the plans or decided upon in the field is not random.
If you were to lay a large map of a hole out on the ground & throw 5 pebbles onto the map to designate bunker position & then stick ‘religiously’ to that bunker positioning; that would be random. ::)
-
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?
NGLA
- examples of bad random bunkering?
Isn't that a contradiction of terms ?
- can random bunkers be built today due to high maintenance costs to keep them up at a non-natural site?
Yes
-
I can't remember who it was that said it but they said something along the lines of no bunker is truly random if you find yourself in it.
That's a loose/general interpretation of what Donald Ross stated.
Certainly some bunkers play more of a defining role in the strategy of a golf hole, but even that statement is rather weak.
And what I mean by that is take the average PGA tour event. Often the pros are rooting for their ball to get in a bunker because it's far more easy to extricate themselves from that than it is the rough.
Therefore, if a bunker doesn't impart fear, or impart a true "penalty" then how can it impact the strategy of a hole?
And this is why I think one of the integral elements of a bunker is that it impart fear. It must be scary looking, and it must impart a true penalty.
So, I think the aesthetics matter. And while surely some bunkers will catch more shots than others....very few bunkers are truly worthless because in the end I think they provide a psychological hazard.
-
The professionals here seem to agree that they should only build bunkers that have a purpose, i.e. no truly random bunkers. But as a weekend hacker, I don't need 'truly' random bunkers; the 'appearance' of randomness can be enough for me. Then if I should find myself in one of them, I can blame the vagaries of blind fate instead of my lousy shot-making for that result. Every once in a while, it's good for the soul to think: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they kill us for their sport".
Also, call me crazy, but the appearance of randomness is a more appealing/attractive appearance. And, after all, what else do we have but appearances. Live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse, as I like to say....
Peter
-
Could someone post the aerial of the 18th hole at NGLA.
Thanks
-
Peter,
"Also, call me crazy...." Okay, you're crazy
And, after all, what else do we have but appearances..... Well, I'm just screwed then.
Live fast.....Well, these 55 years seem to have gone by fast......
die young.....Too late,
leave a pretty corpse.... Well, that can't happen for me. See Above.
-
Peter,
"Also, call me crazy...." Okay, you're crazy
And, after all, what else do we have but appearances..... Well, I'm just screwed then.
Live fast.....Well, these 55 years seem to have gone by fast......
die young.....Too late,
leave a pretty corpse.... Well, that can't happen for me. See Above.
As the kids say, LOL!
-
I don't think I know of a worse description for a feature other than "random bunker". Okay, the USGA definition of a hazard is pretty silly as well. Do archies really want to be known for actually producing random bunkers? It seems to me that ANYBODY can do that. If random is what we want why hire an archie? As a guy who likes minimal bunkering I don't like the idea of hazrads placed willy nilly. I say make few of them, but make them fully accountable.
Ciao
-
I don't think I know of a worse description for a feature other than "random bunker". Okay, the USGA definition of a hazard is pretty silly as well. Do archies really want to be known for actually producing random bunkers? It seems to me that ANYBODY can do that. If random is what we want why hire an archie? As a guy who likes minimal bunkering I don't like the idea of hazrads placed willy nilly. I say make few of them, but make them fully accountable.
Sean,
If we accept that the broad spectrum of golfers, playing from different tees, play games that vary from that of other golfers, is any bunker truely "random"
Does a bunker have to have an apparent or recognized position in order to justify its existance ?
Please view an aerial of the 18th at NGLA and tell me what you think
-
Mike,
Don't flatter yourself. We all have formulas, even if its only to say we don't have formulas.......Even Faz says that.
And just as there can be no random bunkers once you start thinking about them, there has to be a formula once you start thinking about how you approach the design process.......your conversion has already started. ;)
Jeff
I don't think you know enough about my work to make a comment like above.
Mike
-
I don't think I know of a worse description for a feature other than "random bunker". Okay, the USGA definition of a hazard is pretty silly as well. Do archies really want to be known for actually producing random bunkers? It seems to me that ANYBODY can do that. If random is what we want why hire an archie? As a guy who likes minimal bunkering I don't like the idea of hazrads placed willy nilly. I say make few of them, but make them fully accountable.
Sean,
If we accept that the broad spectrum of golfers, playing from different tees, play games that vary from that of other golfers, is any bunker truely "random"
Does a bunker have to have an apparent or recognized position in order to justify its existance ?
Please view an aerial of the 18th at NGLA and tell me what you think
Patrick
With very few exceptions, I think it is hard to say "random bunkering" exists - and for very good reasons.
Its alright to have a few odd ball bunkers out there, probably because the spot and soil make it is easy to build, but I am not in favour of unjustified bunkers mainly because I don't like to see archies using bunkers so often. Think about it. If an archie used 100 mounds like he did 100 bunkers people would likely laugh. That is usually the reaction I have when I see that many bunkers. Nearly always and unless in the hands of truly exceptional archies, 100 bunkers will have the effect of being predictable. I know folks go on about TOC's bunkering, but really, most folks just blast away and hope for the best. The effect of fear has been nearly totally removed because there are so many blind bunkers. Step right up and bang away - its as if folks accept they will catch a few bunkers that are seen as totally in the lap of the gods. If a course is great 100 bunkers, it can be great with 75, 60 or even 50. If a course is deemed great because of its prodigious number of bunkers there is something wrong with the design.
Ciao
-
Pat,
I would suspect that Macdonald did not spend ages out at NGLA in order that bunkers may be "random," whether it's the 18th hole or otherwise. Moreover, there is likely a difference between that which is truly random, and that which APPEARS random. Even the patterns of the terrain on an otherwise untouched landscape (e.g. Sand Hills prior to construction), or the stars in the distant parts of the universe, are in many ways not truly random; even they are/were subject to predictable geologic and/or physical properties that led to their form or their location. The deliberate interference and alteration of a landscape by a designer (Macdonald or otherwise) reveals their conscious desire to control the landscape, which violates any notion of true randomness.
-
Sean,
I feel a little differently about bunkers than you do.
I believe that they are "patterned"
I truely believe that GCA's must weight the challenge so as to not discourage the novice, poorer and mediocre golfer.
Picture if you will, a 24-36 handicap trying to play Pine Valley or Bethpage Black, espcially PV with its heroic carries and impossible bunkers.
If you presented the novice, poorer and mediocre golfer with the same challenge faced by the better and best golfers, they couldn't meet it and would be discouraged.
The only place where the challenge is seemingly equalized is at the green end, but then, the approaching shot is not as threatening due to distance.
In spite of my thoughts on this subject, I'm still shocked by the penal nature of the early courses in America.
Remember, the Sand Wedge didn't come into existance until approximately 1933.
With the Lob wedge debuting probably in the 80's.
Yet, courses Like Hollywood, Pine Valley, GCGC and National represented a strident challenge to the best players let alone the mediocre and poor player.
It's almost like the old designers said, "if you're going to play this game, you'd better get good..... quickly"
However, fairway WIDTH was a great architectural aid in allowing the lesser player to navigate his way around the golf course, avoiding severe bunkering.
-
Patrick,
I like the term patterned bunkers. As you suggest, the most influential thing about Mac and ANGC was that there was virtually NO penalty for the hacks, other than they didn't hit if far enough to reach a green in regulation. Bunkers were mostly positioned to challenge the good players. It set the stage for most design that has followed - non penal everywhere but where a good player would play.
We tend to go to tournament courses, and I think most are thinking of RTJ and Wilson and their tendency to cluster bunkers at the tournament doglegs, which really over emphasized the turn point, and pro landing areas. But, for all other courses, those old bunkers 120 yards off the tee, whether top shot or carry bunkers back in the old days, slowly got removed for financial and speed of play reasons, as we all know. But they may have gotten replaced a little to strenuoulsly, since then as now tournament courses affect design more than they should.
I really don't think anyone has come up with a better idea than the old ANGC flexibility idea in general for a good golf course that is also fun for the bill paying members to play. I believe we may have too strenuoulsy pursued it, designing only for tour pros who won't ever show up. And, I will never forget an older member telling me that he paid the same dues as the whippersnappers, and felt he deserved to hit in a few bunkers, too!
So, I believe that you start with bunkering the main landing zone (which may work for all, making the big assumption people play the tee sets that correspond to their driving distance) but just be prepared to back off and vary the distance those hazards are from the tee so every one gets a chance to hit in the bunkers once in a while.
-
Just the concept of a "Random" bunker suggests that golfers have, for too long, been fed a steady diet of "bunker the landing are. This has evolved into an expectation that bunkers will be sited around the intended landing area. I find this leads to predictable and boring designs. This convention can be exploited to create false depth perception presentations by making long holes appear shorter, short holes appear longer, or the opposite - long holes appear even longer and short holes appearing even shorter. The size of the bunker has to be fine tuned to coresspond to the inrtended scheme.
Furthermore, having fairways without any bunkers can help add to this convention. Without any predetermined markers, it's left to the golfer to determine for themselves where to land it.
-
The professionals here seem to agree that they should only build bunkers that have a purpose, i.e. no truly random bunkers. But as a weekend hacker, I don't need 'truly' random bunkers; the 'appearance' of randomness can be enough for me. Then if I should find myself in one of them, I can blame the vagaries of blind fate instead of my lousy shot-making for that result. Every once in a while, it's good for the soul to think: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they kill us for their sport".
Also, call me crazy, but the appearance of randomness is a more appealing/attractive appearance. And, after all, what else do we have but appearances. Live fast, die young, leave a pretty corpse, as I like to say....
Peter
The whole notion of truly random bunkering stikes me as silly. (You want random? I have an eight year old nephew who can really do random. He has the right mindset. But that is not the mindset I want to hire to design my golf course.)
I think Jeff nails it above.
But Peter's post gave me pause. I don't agree with him, but brilliant.
Bob
-
Tim Nugent,
If you don't bunker the DZ, you eliiminate a good deal of the challenge unless the course has some really unusual characteristics.
Can you think of a golf course void of bunkering in the DZ.
I only know of one, my home course, Preakness Hills.
When built, it had but one fairway bunker.
Even today, seven holes do not have fairway bunkering in the DZ.
The other holes had fairway bunkering added over the years.
In fact, an interesting study would be to see how the fairway bunkering has morphed over the years.
-
Patrick,
I like the term patterned bunkers. As you suggest, the most influential thing about Mac and ANGC was that there was virtually NO penalty for the hacks, other than they didn't hit if far enough to reach a green in regulation. Bunkers were mostly positioned to challenge the good players. It set the stage for most design that has followed - non penal everywhere but where a good player would play.
We tend to go to tournament courses, and I think most are thinking of RTJ and Wilson and their tendency to cluster bunkers at the tournament doglegs, which really over emphasized the turn point, and pro landing areas. But, for all other courses, those old bunkers 120 yards off the tee, whether top shot or carry bunkers back in the old days, slowly got removed for financial and speed of play reasons, as we all know. But they may have gotten replaced a little to strenuoulsly, since then as now tournament courses affect design more than they should.
I really don't think anyone has come up with a better idea than the old ANGC flexibility idea in general for a good golf course that is also fun for the bill paying members to play. I believe we may have too strenuoulsy pursued it, designing only for tour pros who won't ever show up. And, I will never forget an older member telling me that he paid the same dues as the whippersnappers, and felt he deserved to hit in a few bunkers, too!
So, I believe that you start with bunkering the main landing zone (which may work for all, making the big assumption people play the tee sets that correspond to their driving distance) but just be prepared to back off and vary the distance those hazards are from the tee so every one gets a chance to hit in the bunkers once in a while.
This is a pretty darn good post right here. This is text book stuff.
-
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)
Jeff,
I can't believe I didn't ask this before. I just flew back into my native Lincoln, Nebraska and this comment came back to mind. I always enjoyed playing at Highlands in Lincoln as a kid and especially love the 3 short par 4's on the front. I have always loved 7 most for the risk reward option and how difficult the hole plays if you don't go for the heroic drive over the bunker. I don't have any photos, but I copied in a satellite image of the hole so people know what I am talking about. If I remember right, the carry over the bunker is probably 230 or so from the back and the hole is about 300. But playing from the fairway on the left is blind over a relatively deep bunker and some dunes to a nasty green.
(http://travelstainedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Highlands-7.jpg)
Of course, the satellite image is new and the bunker is much smaller today. I tried to outline the original bunker size (which you can still see the outline of in the photo), which was at least 4 times bigger in my estimation. I would be fascinated to hear how this came to be. I assume the city of Lincoln did not provide you with a land mass ration for bunkering for Highlands ;D ;D ;D ;D or that it was agreed that it would play largely as more of a waste area.
Ben