[Chris Buie]

I have noticed that some genuine GCA's sometimes like to put a bunker in front of a green that appears to be greenside - when in actuality it is considerably short of the green.  Even knowing the yardage, it is quite deceptive.  
I was wondering what their intention was.  Since this is a technique employed by respectable architects I doubt mere deception was what they were getting at.  Was the idea to make you think a bit more?
I don't really know the answer to this but I'm sure someone here will.  I do know Alister MacKenzie was seriously involved in camouflage during the Boer War and subsequently was keen on using similar techniques in his designs.  However, that still doesn't really tell me what these GCA's were getting at.  
And so, which one of you bright lights knows the answer?

Here are a couple of examples.  How far does the bunker on the right appear to be from the green?  Scroll down and you will see.





Here is an aerial of the green complex.


The hole above is the 7th on Pinehurst #5 - Ellis Maples.

Here is another example.  From about 180 the right front bunker does appear greenside.



Even at short range it still doesn't seem short of the green.


It is actually about maybe 25 feet short of the 10th green at Mid Pines.

[Anthony Gray]

  The hole at Bandon Trails with the pond has an awesome one.

  Anthony

[Mac Plumart]

It is funny you posted this.  I am reading Tillinghast's "The Course Beautiful" and I just finished his chapter on Deception by using trees, bunkers, etc to fool the golfer's eye regarding how far something is.

Doesn't this seem to lead to the conclusion that laser range finders and yardage markers/devices are not how the game was intended to be played.  Much like your post touches on...these brilliant deceptions are rendered close to pointless, if I can shoot my laser at  the flag and know the exact distance.

Also, the trick regarding how much room is between the bunker and green is a great "deception" that is again rendered near pointless if I can "shoot" the lip of the bunker and the flag stick.

But I, like you, would love to hear the architects/gurus thoughts on this.

[Mark Molyneux]

Doesn't this seem to lead to the conclusion that laser range finders and yardage markers/devices are not how the game was intended to be played.  Much like your post touches on...these brilliant deceptions are rendered close to pointless, if I can shoot my laser at  the flag and know the exact distance.

You raise a really interesting point about the range finders! Even with a good reading on a clear day, I stand in the middle of a fairway on a new course with a number in my head and the digital number, courtesy of Bushnell. It's a moral / gamer's struggle. I spent a lot of money on the range finder so I can't easily put it away and in truth, I find no great joy in carrying the bunkers that we're talking about, walking up, and finding that I still have 20 yards to the putting surface.

Of course range finders are not the way the game was intended to be played but they're legal now, like hot balls and 460 cc titanium drivers. I get by, telling myself that the architect really had me fooled. I can marvel / chuckle at that and still keep pace with a fellow competitor who has a yardage book in his pocket or a caddy at his side or a track record that includes playing that particular hole a hundred times before. I can't tell you how many times I've been told that golf like life itself was never intended to be "fair" but I disagree. I think I ought to be able to stand over a shot with the same chance of pulling it off as anyone. Architectural brilliance aside, I think range finders achieve that.

I'm inclined to believe that when the Golden age guys set about their camoflauge, golf wasn't meant to be played with a range finder or a GPS but it isn't 1924 anymore.

Fooling the eye is just one small, subtle way that course designers can mess with the mind. Who's to say that a laser "solves" the problem anyway. Some of golf is played in the subconscious mind and despite my rational, scientific inclination, I still feel less at ease over a shot that looks to be 170 even when I "know" that I scoped it at 188.

[Ed Oden]

Chris, it seems to me the best bunkers of this genre are not limited strictly to a deceptive function.  Rather, the cream of the crop present strategic and execution challenges beyond deception.  For example, #1 at Carolina is a reachable par 5.  Here is the view from the fairway...



The left front bunker looks to be greenside.  But the view from behind shows it is actually well short of the green...



So clearly this bunker is deceptive.  But its also much more.  It is perfectly placed to affect play both for those going for the green in two and for those laying up.  Misjudge either way and you are left with the dreaded 50 yard bunker shot.  In my opinion, that bunker is the strategic key to the hole irrespective of the deception.

Ed

[Carl Johnson]

Chris, it seems to me the best bunkers of this genre are not limited strictly to a deceptive function.  Rather, the cream of the crop present strategic and execution challenges beyond deception.  For example, #1 at Carolina is a reachable par 5.  Here is the view from the fairway...



The left front bunker looks to be greenside.  But the view from behind shows it is actually well short of the green...



So clearly this bunker is deceptive.  But its also much more.  It is perfectly placed to affect play both for those going for the green in two and for those laying up.  Misjudge either way and you are left with the dreaded 50 yard bunker shot.  In my opinion, that bunker is the strategic key to the hole irrespective of the deception.

Ed

Ed, the bunker is deceptive the first couple of times you play the hole.  After that, it is "much more."  Been there, done that, today.  Not to change the subject, but how is it you know the bunker is there . . . you know where it is . . . and you still have the confidence to think you can avoid it . . . and yet you don't?  Does the deception continue beyond the rational, or are we just fools?

[Matthew Sander]

Somewhat in line with Ed's point, I think these bunkers also serve a strategic purpose by making a run up shot a little more difficult. Often these bunkers are on holes where the green is ideal for a shot bounced in. Since they are recessed they allow the room for such a shot, but you have to correctly gauge your carry and trajectory.

[Matt Schmidt]

Doesn't this seem to lead to the conclusion that laser range finders and yardage markers/devices are not how the game was intended to be played.  Much like your post touches on...these brilliant deceptions are rendered close to pointless, if I can shoot my laser at  the flag and know the exact distance.

I'm not sure.  To that extent, the deceptions really only work the first time you play a course (fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...).  And that assumes the first time you play the course you do not have a caddie or playing partner with you that knows the course.  So if the whole point of the deceptions is to fool players only the first time they play a course and only if they play it without any other information, then I agree.

Otherwise, even with more definite information, you still have to deal with the apparent contradiction between what you see and what you know, and overcome it.  I think this is part of their purpose, along with varying the strategic options on the hole as noted in some other comments.

[Matthew Petersen]

I have to disagree that the technique is necessarily about "fooling" the golfer, because it's certainly true that it would only last one round (or perhaps not even that given GPS, yardage books, etc). It's about the other word in the thread title ... perception. Some 160 yard shots look a lot longer than others and no matter what someone's yardage finder says, what a shot looks like matters more to most golfers than hat they "know" the yardage to be.

[Mike_Young]

It is funny you posted this.  I am reading Tillinghast's "The Course Beautiful" and I just finished his chapter on Deception by using trees, bunkers, etc to fool the golfer's eye regarding how far something is.

Doesn't this seem to lead to the conclusion that laser range finders and yardage markers/devices are not how the game was intended to be played.  Much like your post touches on...these brilliant deceptions are rendered close to pointless, if I can shoot my laser at  the flag and know the exact distance.

Also, the trick regarding how much room is between the bunker and green is a great "deception" that is again rendered near pointless if I can "shoot" the lip of the bunker and the flag stick.

But I, like you, would love to hear the architects/gurus thoughts on this.

Mac,
Two things:
The laser range finder may make the deception pointless if it is for a full shot but if the hole places the golfer with a sand wedge or a half shot..then the bunker can play with most people's minds...

Also...while I have not had conversations with the ODG's....I have had several older guys tell me that the bunkers ( what I call early bunkers) were placed in front as described because the hickory shaft and lack of irrigation made such a bunker "in play" wen the ball had to bump and run to the green...therefore barely carrying such a bunker would allow the ball to make the green....

[Chris Buie]

Well, you guys are making good points as I knew you would.  I was sure architects of this caliber had something in mind - I just wasn't exactly clear on what that was.  Matthew and Mike do make a good point regarding the ground game.  The visual of these bunkers is affecting even though most of us know the distance and play an aerial game these days.  It would have been even more affecting when those guys were poaching around the grounds with their gutta perchas.  The bunkers would really have figured into the strategy then.  Making the golfer think and strategize is what they were after I suspect.
Thanks to all for your input and Ed - how far is that bunker away from the green?

[Ed Oden]

Thanks to all for your input and Ed - how far is that bunker away from the green?

Chris, its about 30-35 yards short of the green.

[Scott Warren]

You see this a lot in England.

Tom Simpson did it a a bit with great success at New Zealand.

#7 at Swinley Forest may be one of the best examples I have seen. By Colt of course.

Braid did it on #8 at Deal with the green circled by bunkers, but the short one is just far enough short of the green that landing it short if it's downwind is possible, but doesn't seem it from the tee.

In days before sprinkler head yardages, GPS units and lasers rangefinders it would have been so much more effective, but I still find some doubt sits in your mind, even if you know how far it is.

[Sean_A]

For me, the short bunker is about

1. Deception, especially if the green runs away and it is difficult to tell where the hole is.  I love bunkers which block views.
2. Making the land short and run up shot more difficult - there still are courses which are f&f .
3. Often times, the green will be raised slightly beyond a short bunker making for an interesting recovery.
4. A tough recovery for the fool who lands in it - which is often about the recovery AFTER a poor drive.

Ciao

[Pat Burke]

Growing up and becoming a 3rd generation golf pro, I remember my grandfather (well regarded head pro and player)
telling me that many of those short bunkers were actually protecting the TARGET area.  Before the edvent of wall to wall irrigation
and "green is keen", many of these type of bunkers guarded the area the player would have to land the ball to run it on.
Of course, my grandfather told me this, so it must be right
Deception does work as wel, but I always liked his explanation

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom Simpson was a master at this...

The best modern example I've seen is Tim Liddy's rework at the Dukes course in St Andrews...

It is one of my favourite aspects of GCA... deception...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

Range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books have obsoleted one of the architect's most important assets, the "golfer's eye".

Today, the deception is mostly lost due to the need by today's golfers to rely on artificial aids.

All range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books should be done away with, but, I dout that will happen for a century or two.

[Carl Johnson]

Thanks to all for your input and Ed - how far is that bunker away from the green?

Chris, its about 30-35 yards short of the green.

Ed, what about the right side bunker in front of the 15 green at Carolina?  My assumption is that it's also intended as a deception since it doesn't "guard" anything.  Do you have a photo or two you could share, along with your observations about this bunker?  For example, beyond the deception element, does this bunker have an execution challenge?  In my experience, golfers' second shots aren't directly challenged by this bunker, and only poorly hit shots end up in it.
Thanks, Carl

[Carl Johnson]

I have to disagree that the technique is necessarily about "fooling" the golfer, because it's certainly true that it would only last one round (or perhaps not even that given GPS, yardage books, etc). It's about the other word in the thread title ... perception. Some 160 yard shots look a lot longer than others and no matter what someone's yardage finder says, what a shot looks like matters more to most golfers than hat they "know" the yardage to be.

I agree with you Matthew.  That's what I was trying to suggest when I asked, "Does the deception continue beyond the rational . . . ?"

[Tim Nugent]

Well done! I think many of you have hit upon the many nuances of the fore bunker.  Let me generalize.  I have been taught that architects proved the defense against par and golfers provide the offense to attack it.  The 'deceptive' fore bunker can impart a mental paradox in that the eyes and the brain don't necessarily agree - lending to a less-than-confident decision.  Since the longest distance on a course is the 6" between the ears, we can use indecision as a defense. 

This is one of the more blatant uses of this defense.  I'm sure many would be surprised at how many more are used that you never really notice.

[Niall C]

Tom Simpson was a master at this...

The best modern example I've seen is Tim Liddy's rework at the Dukes course in St Andrews...

It is one of my favourite aspects of GCA... deception...

Ally

Which hole at the Dukes ? Did Liddy mostly retain the bunker positioning or has he reworked it to any extent ?

Niall

[Brent Hutto]

Perhaps I overlooked it but has anyone mentioned that 99% of club players absolutely suck at hitting a 45-yard shot from a bunker?

Given that it apparently takes a broken rangefinder, a ridiculous mis-club or horrific mis-hit to end up in one of those bunkers it is perhaps appropriate that the penalty for being there is a full stroke for most of us.

The third hole at my club is a shortish, flat, straight Par 5 that would be reached in two every half-hour if not for the array or bunkers ranging from immediately greenside on the front right and far left to 40 yards short directly in front of the green. Combine that with a green that is only 15 paces deep on its right half this is an effective "strategizer".

[Carl Rogers]

Before I ever heard of this web site, got interested in GCA through lack of opportunity to observe & play it or TD, it was this very

theme, variation, permutations and qualities that initially fascinated me about Riverfront.  Every single hole has some interplay of

terrain, hazards and perspective in this way. 

[Ed Oden]

Thanks to all for your input and Ed - how far is that bunker away from the green?

Chris, its about 30-35 yards short of the green.

Ed, what about the right side bunker in front of the 15 green at Carolina?  My assumption is that it's also intended as a deception since it doesn't "guard" anything.  Do you have a photo or two you could share, along with your observations about this bunker?  For example, beyond the deception element, does this bunker have an execution challenge?  In my experience, golfers' second shots aren't directly challenged by this bunker, and only poorly hit shots end up in it.
Thanks, Carl

Carl, I don't think the bunker on #15 has much of a deceptive component since it is essentially blind from the place where most golfers hit their approach shots.  Can something be deceptive if it can't be seen?  I agree that it really only comes into play on poorly hit shots.  Unlike #1, you don't have to plot a strategy around it.  Here is the requested picture...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom Simpson was a master at this...

The best modern example I've seen is Tim Liddy's rework at the Dukes course in St Andrews...

It is one of my favourite aspects of GCA... deception...

Ally

Which hole at the Dukes ? Did Liddy mostly retain the bunker positioning or has he reworked it to any extent ?

Niall

Niall,

He maintained some of the bunker positioning of course... But he reworked a lot of it (and remember he rerouted 3 holes completely)... but it is the style as much as anything that causes the deception... Admittedly a lot of this deception is faced with the tee shot but there are certainly a couple of examples of "approach" bunkers laid 30 or 40 yards short of the green that you could have sworn were greenside...

Naturally, I don't use course guides even when they are available... I also try and avoid yardage markers... By doing this, I had a great amount of fun on this course... My decision making was all over the place because of length deception caused by these bunkers...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()