Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: DMoriarty on April 05, 2003, 10:37:34 AM
-
To run with a topic started by Shivas:
Would it be possible to build a truly world class course without bunkers?
Why or why not?
-
Yes, absolutely! It can be done. The defense for the hole is utilzed best in how you would attack the green, and then the green becomes the next defense--You know, Rustic Canyon #12 without the bunkers that line the left!:)
-
Doesn't Royal Ashdown Forest have no bunker?
My favourite par 4 Foxy at Royal Dornoch has none too.
I agree with Tommy, yes.
-
If you could build a truly world-class course without bunkers (which I doubt) it would involve ridiculous amounts of earth-moving.
Sure, there are individual holes like Foxy where no bunkers are needed but you won't find 18 of those on any piece of land.
If you think about the functions bunkers fulfill then their replacements would have one or more of these drawbacks: more expensive, less effective, monotonous through overuse.
Some uses of bunkers, off the top of my head...
Strategy: Most replacements would be too penal (eg water, heavy rough) and/or expensive (shaping the terrain to give hanging lies etc where the bunker would be)
Containment: Dirty word perhaps, but what does a better job than a bunker from stopping balls flying deep into the trees or onto an adjacent fairway. (mounds are good too but we come back to all that dirt shifting)
Aesthetics: a legitimate use IMHO, but it's all a matter of taste...
I've not played Royal Ashdown Forest so can't really comment. But I suspect the key words in the original post are 'truly world-class'. They're not allowed to dig there, so no bunkers. Others who have played it say it would be improved by the addition of a few.
-
If you could build a truly world-class course without bunkers (which I doubt) it would involve ridiculous amounts of earth-moving.
Andy, Interesting comments. When starting the thread, I was thinking of just the opposite -- I envisioned a course created with very little earth moving. (I wonder how much dirt gets moved during construction to accomodate/create bunkers.) Also, I probably should have included added artificial water hazards as well as bunkers in my original inquiry.
As far as increased costs, I would imagine that bunkers would be quite expensive per square foot, perhaps moreso than anything but greens. Perhaps I assume incorrecty?
As to your individual points:
1. Strategy. Why do you think an architect have to resort to features such as hanging lies or heavy rough to provide strategy? Aren't bunkers penal, at least to most golfers? I think of strategy in terms of multiple angles of attack, and it seem that one could provide for interesting angles of attack by use of green contours, elevation changes, and interesting fairway contours.
2. Containment. I am not a big fan of containment, and generally dislike containment bunkers, so we might just disagree here. But even if we assume the necessity of containment on a world class course, wouldnt rough be just as effective?
3. Aesthetics. You make a legitimate point. I read somewhere (I dont remember where) that it is legitimate to use bunkers where they are not naturally occuring because they provide the connection back to true links golf. This can actually be seen at Cypress Point, where MacKenzie uses bunkers (such as on Number 4) to blend the links part of the course into the non-links sections.
That being said, I sometimes like clean look of a bunkerless shot, and find it a refreshing change of pace.
-
Great topic, and to get specific, has anyone played the RTJ Trail course in Huntsville? I read that it has no bunkers. Is it any good, and is ground/greens utilized for strategic purposes? How? Does its quality reflect at all on the general topic, or merely on the designer?
Jeff Goldman
-
There is a certain amount of variety to be lost by not having any bunkers ... you won't have as many different recovery situations to play from if you rule out anything to do with a bunker. But mostly what precludes courses from going without bunkers is convention ... the certain knowledge that most people (including most ratings panelists) would think less of a course without the eye candy of bunkers.
Crystal Downs would still be one of the top 100 courses in the world if it had no bunkers.
Royal Ashdown Forest is an excellent course without a bunker.
I'd love to do a course without a bunker someday if I had a client who was like-minded, and a good undulating piece of ground.
-
I'd love to do a course without a bunker someday if I had a client who was like-minded, and a good undulating piece of ground.
Start looking for the land. I am bound to hit the lottery one of these weeks.
-
Dave Moriarty:
Yes, I think it would be possible. Tom Doak mentions Crystal Downs. I would add Ballybunion as a course that could probably have most if not all of its bunkers stripped away and you would still be left with a great course.
As Tom suggests, topography would be very important in such an exercise, but with the right piece of land you could probably come up with some enjoyable golf.
In my experience there are a large percentage of golfers that are very uncomfortable playing from bunkers. So, something creative that didn't rely on bunkers might be a big hit.
-
Dave, I know you made the comment about the irony of desiring natural routing along the ground with minimal earth movement as contrasted to the psychology of massive earthworks of construction for the creation of sand bunkers; but consider the flatish style of some of Raynor's bunkers with steep slopes of turf up to highly manufactured greens of significant contouring. The same goes for Langford's style. What if you didn't change a thing on courses like Yeaman's Hall, Country Club of Charleston, or Lawsonia (those seem to me to be of a particular style as I described above) and merely replaced the sand in the flatish bottoms of those bunkers with 3-4 inch, rather lush grass? I say, those courses may very well play much more difficult and still plenty of fun.
-
I wrote it in Volume 2 of Paul Daley's GOLF ARCHITECTURE series: like Doak suggests about Crystal Downs, Stanley Thompson's Highlands Links would also remain a world top-100 minus bunkers. There, there's enough contour and wind to keep the game interesting without sand.
-
Jeff,
HL might be more interesting without the current bunkering. :)
-
Cape Breton imediately comes to mind for me too. Eastward Ho! is missing quite a few bunkers and still is great. Pebble Beach?
-
Tom MacWood:
Funny you should mention Pebble Beach. I was thinking the very same thing. Not that many holes strike me as really needing the bunkers. #4, 7 and 17 come to mind, but some of the real gems don't seem to need bunkers, e.g., #8, 9 and 10.
-
Tommy Naccarato,
The 10th hole at Preakness Hills had no bunkers until recently.
It is one thing to design a hole or two without bunkers, it's quite another to design all 18 without bunkers.
Tom Doak,
It would take an extraordinary piece of property to do so.
The fact that no bunkerless golf course has been created in over 600 years would seem to indicate that it either can't be done, or would be extremely difficult to do.
-
I beg to differ about "no bunkerless course." I know of at least one. The Bourne, in Norway, Illinois, has no bunkers. Not one. Its not anywhere near top 100 status, and never will be. But it is blessed with a wonderful, extremely rolling piece of ground unlike most of the area. It is very wooded. And the aforementioned Bourne is very much in play on several holes. There is a par 3 with the green set behind a natural waterfall which is one of the most beautiful holes I have personally ever seen. The Bourne doesn't even show up in most course listings because it is so out-of-the-way. But it has sort of a cult standing among avid golfers in the Chicagoland area. It is also among the toughest courses I have played, proving (at least to me) that bunkers are not really necessary to provide a challenge.
-
Pat Mucci said:
"The fact that no bunkerless golf course has been created in over 600 years would seem to indicate that it either can't be done, or would be extremely difficult to do."
You should probably reconsider the real meaning of this remark by Tom Doak above as it says a lot about that statement of yours;
"But mostly what precludes courses from going without bunkers is convention ... the certain knowledge that most people (including most ratings panelists) would think less of a course without the eye candy of bunkers."
That remark is the absolute God's honest truth, in my opinoin, particularly the part about convention. Refer to post #5 in Shivas's "Great big bad bunker..." thread regarding the likely reason why that bunker "convention" came to be so prevalent in golf architecture.
Certainly for a course to go bunkerless successfully it would likely help a ton if the site had a good deal of interest--topography and such.
William Flynn explained this subject very succinctly, particularly in preparation for building both Philadelphia C.C. and some of the holes at Shinnecock. He said that generally he didn't use bunkering very much if the ground (or other site interest) had a lot to offer and that generally bunkering was used, and used prevalently when the ground didn't have much to offer. In this way it can be understood that bunkering can be a sort of supplement in certain cases and places.
Have you ever wondered why originally there was so much more bunkering on the mid-bodies of some to the flatland holes of Shinnecock (like the orginal designed "undulated waste areas" on particularly #5, #6 and #8 ) compared to the far more togographical back nine holes? Well that's the reason--ie it was supposed to be a supplement for less than interesting golfing ground.
-
Tom Doak,
It would take an extraordinary piece of property to do so.
The fact that no bunkerless golf course has been created in over 600 years would seem to indicate that it either can't be done, or would be extremely difficult to do.
Patrick
There a quite a few bunkerless courses in the UK, much younger than 600 years :D You've forgotten Painswick already? ;) (Perhaps, you're only thinking about world class courses?)
Ashdown is widely regarded as the best, and nobody really notices, because the terrain is so bold and interesting. The course might be marginally improved by including bunkers on just a few holes that are on less interesting terrain-like the 3rd.
I think you could build a great bunkerless links, if the terrain is truly great, as suggested above with Ballybunion.
-
Paul:
It's not that Patrick has forgotten anything. But when he makes statements like no course has been built without bunkering in over 600 years you just have to take into consideration that Pat's wrong 98% of the time--so then statements like that become very understandable--extremely commonplace, in fact.
-
I think most courses (links and otherwise--e.g. Painswick) with great natural land movement could exist happily without bunkers. The problem would be that if there were no bunkers, golfers would eventually create them over the years, as they tried to hack their ways out of the wee hollows into which balls would naturally roll. There is a paradox here, the better the land for a bunkerless course, the more unlikely that it could remain for long without bunkers being created "naturally" (if you hold to the belief that man is a part of nature, of course......).
-
I thought The Ocean Course technically was designed without bunkers.While they may not be great there are several municipal courses that play fine without them.Tenison East in Dallas,which once hosted a Publinks comes to mind.I think the perception is that a bunkerless course is inferior is best illustrated in an East Texas real estate course that had one bunker.The bunker was on the left of #3 green,right at the entrance to the property and was the first feature a guest-prospective buyer would see.I always wondered how long it took a new member to realize a quality sand game was really unnecessary to score well there.
-
I stand corrected, so let me amend my statement.
That fact that almost NO bunkerless courses......
-
While there may not be a truly bunkerless course, we at GCA can easily construct a composite bunkerless course that would qualify as great. Let's start with Foxy at Dornoch.
JC
-
Rich is right: the best terrain for a bunkerless course would be links ground, where sand is a natural hazard. Ballybunion and Portrush don't have much more than 25 bunkers each, and I'm sure they could survive without them. Certainly, there were several holes at Pacific Dunes which could have stood on their merits without bunkers, but so far no one has chided us for putting them in.
Royal Ashdown Forest has the natural advantage of heather, which it employs in much the same way an architect might use bunkers.
To me, the ideal ground for a bunkerless course would be a ruggedly undulating property with a wide variety of vegetation, so you could use the trees and ground cover as secondary hazards where a hole needed a little more oomph.
-
Great irony in trying to build a bunkerless course in the only place bunkers occur naturally. ;D
-
« Reply #22 on: April 6th, 2003, 9:03am »
"I stand corrected, so let me amend my statement."
Pat Mucci
Do you believe that? It's only taken about three years to get this man to admit the errors of his ways and say something like that! This statement is something that should either be a premanent fixture on Golfclubatlas.com or should be a permanent fixture on all posts this man has made or a "caveat" on all posts he makes in the future. Perhaps Ran can alter the Golfclubatlas software to automatically include this statement in parentheses every time Pat Mucci hits the "reply" button
I'm printing that statement out and pasting it onto my refrigerator.
-
Tom
I'm flabergasted and can hardly believe it!!
From this Limey, here's a GB&I collection of great bunkerless holes. Can you Yanks match it ;)
Par 3s:
5th Royal Worlington
6th Painswick
5th Rye
8th Swinley Forest
9th Brancepeth Castle
4th County Sligo
14th Royal Portrush (Dunluce)
Par 4s
14th Royal Dornoch
4th Rye
18th Rye
6th Ballybunion
11th Ballybunion
14th County Louth
15th Formby
1st Hoylake
17th Royal Ahsdown Forest
18th St Enodoc
Par 5s
12th Royal Ashdown
16th Pennard
10th Portrush (Valley)
Must be more but can't think of any at the moment.
Interestingly, for the courses that actually have bunkers, these holes are perhaps the very best on the course.
Jonathan
Cool pic of you in Links! Biggles?
-
There are plenty of substitutes for bunkers. They are way over used by modern golf architects. Easy to draw, hard to build, most always hard to take care of.
-
I'm not sure that there are many "great" courses without bunkers, but I will say that MANY of the first courses I played growing up didn't have bunkers. They simply couldn't afford to create and maintain them, as they tended to be rather utilitarian affairs of 9 or 18 holes, available to the public and without pretense of any kind.
The funny thing is that as I sit here thinking back on many of them, they did tend to use natural features in creative ways that would be appreciated by many on here. In fact, although the courses were assuredly not world class, they did include holes that played wonderfully, again and again, and I truly didn't know what I was missing.
Interestingly, many of them did include grass bunkers in place of sand. I tend to think they played more difficult, simply due to the inability to put spin on the ball from the rough.
All of that being said, I still love "great" bunkers, both from a visual as well as psychological perspective. Still, way too many of the bunkers built today have neither attribute, and are seemingly simply placed for color contrast.
-
Thanks Paul - the picture was staged in front of my house. It took them 2 hours to set everything up. Needless-to-say, my neighbors were in stitches.
Biggles?
Your composite bunkerless list would be hard for us yanks to trump...
JC
-
Dave Moriarty:
FYI, one of the reasons I suggest Ballybunion could have all its bunkers removed and still have a great course is that as it is, bunkers don’t have that much influence on play today. Hole by hole I assess things as follows:
1 – Both tee shot and approach from left side are influenced by bunkers.
2 – No real influence
3 – Bunkers surround green, but elevated tee and wind conditions really dictate
4 – No real influence
5 – Cross bunker influences second shot in the event of poor tee shot
6 – Nothing
7 – No real influence
8 – Front pot bunkers influence, but essence of hole might be preserved without them
9 – No real influence
10 - No real influence
11 – Well known as being one of the best holes in the world without any bunkers
12 – No real influence
13 – No real influence
13 – No real influence
14 – No real influence
15 – No real influence
16 – Hidden bunkers off tee influence in certain wind conditions
17 – No real influence
18 – Famous sahara bunker, but topography alone might suffice might
Right next door on the Cashen course the same situation exists, in my opinion. Bunkers really don’t play much of a role. In fact, some of RTJ’s original bunkers have been lost over time due to erosion and really nothing has been lost. Interestingly, both courses are built on and around massive sand dunes, but sand bunkers really aren’t what either course is all about.
One other course worth mentioning is Burnham & Berrow. Having only made one visit (some five years ago) I can't provide a detailed account, but I suspect all the bunkers could be removed and not that much would be lost. Maybe Russell Talley or Paul Turner could chime in on this point.
Finally, It is somewhat ironic that my favorite place in the world of golf relies so little on bunkers. I'm actually quite a fan of the artistic work done by Mackenzie & Co and his modern day admirers.
P.S. I'm surprised nobody has talked about Augusta. Aethetics aside, how much would be lost - especially for casual member play - if all the bunkers were removed?
-
Tim Weiman,
I believe removal of the bunkers at ANGC would be a terrible loss.
What I am puzzled by is why they didn't leave the bunkers where they were at # 5 and just add those new bunkers 80 yards down the fairway, to keep the tee shot the same for most members and guests.
TEPaul,
I can understand your shock.
I am so rarely incorrect, that when it does happen, you're not prepared for it. My mistake was haste, had I not been in a rush I never would have used an absolute term. I'm glad I made 2003 a good year for you, unfortunately, you'll have to wait until 2004 for the next error. ;D
-
Pat Mucci:
Regarding ANGC, I'm just wondering whether there are people who think that the course might retain a good bit of its fun without the bunkers.
Let's take Amen corner for a 10 handicap member. Wouldn't the approach to #11 still be pretty good, especially with left or center left pin placements? Wouldn't the tee shot on #12 still be pretty tough? How about the decision to go for the green on #13?
Now, I grant you that a 10 handicapper who wasn't a good bunker player might find comfort not having to think about the bunkers behind #12, but I think think the hole would be quite challenging and a lot of fun.
Wouldn't the topography alone make for a pretty good course at Augusta?
-
I thought this thread was pretty interesting. Although we always bang up against the definition of "great".
I was very intrigued about the possibility of Ballybunion being great if all bunkers were removed. I don't know the course well enough to dig too deeply...any others with an opinion?
Its true Burnham has relatively few bunkers and some could go, but the course would not be as good without any sand. Holes, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are all better with some element of sand.
The best bunkerless course I know is Kington, but I am not sure it's great. Perhaps Kington could be great with the added variety of bunkers.
Ciao
-
Not sure if it will be great but I just secured planning permission for a new bunkerless golf course in Newcastle. It's located within a grade 2 listed landscape and one requirement was no sand bunkers on the landscape. Hopefully we will start construction next year.
Cumbria has a few good courses without bunkers, I always enjoy Windermere GC and Appleby GC.
And in terms of good holes without bunkers Silloth has holes 3,4,7 and 13.
-
Jonathon,
Good news regarding your course in Newcastle. I look forward to hearing more in due course.
3rd at Silloth actually has a bunker top/front of green depending on how you are approaching. Small but not inconsequential. Good shout on the others though. Some of the strongest on the course. Maybe another course that you could perhaps de-bunker and it would still be great.
Niall
-
Not sure if it will be great but I just secured planning permission for a new bunkerless golf course in Newcastle. It's located within a grade 2 listed landscape and one requirement was no sand bunkers on the landscape. Hopefully we will start construction next year.
Cumbria has a few good courses without bunkers, I always enjoy Windermere GC and Appleby GC.
And in terms of good holes without bunkers Silloth has holes 3,4,7 and 13.
Jonathan,
Please keep us posted, this really intrigues me. The more natural features and change of elevation you have the better the chance it is received positively is my guess.
Here is a photo of one of Ross's finest bunkerless holes #7 at Inverness in Toledo, OH
(http://imageshack.com/a/img922/4343/YYJH8v.jpg)
-
If golf had commenced inland would the trend have been for sandy areas on links/heathland courses to be grassed over?
Atb
-
Dai
Who says that golf didn't start inland ? ;)
Sand bunkers were originally scars in the turf caused by erosion and foot traffic. You can get the same inland although of course inland turf tends to be more stable than sand based turf. It's just that these days whether it's links or parkland, any such damage will be sorted by the greenkeeper.
Niall
-
Dai
Who says that golf didn't start inland ? ;)
Sand bunkers were originally scars in the turf caused by erosion and foot traffic. You can get the same inland although of course inland turf tends to be more stable than sand based turf. It's just that these days whether it's links or parkland, any such damage will be sorted by the greenkeeper.
Niall
Just being naughty Niall, but I think you knew that!
On the similar theme perhaps putting surfaces should be frozen ponds with a wee hole to putt into! :)
atb
-
The answer is YES for many of the reasons already mentioned plus more.
-
I have posted this photo tour link before when discussion of bunkerless course comes up:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html
Guess it depends on your definition of great but Arrowtown is certainly interesting!
-
I have posted this photo tour link before when discussion of bunkerless course comes up:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html)
Guess it depends on your definition of great but Arrowtown is certainly interesting!
Grant: Was Arrowtown entirely bunkerless? I can't remember now.
One of the reasons I dislike this discussion is because it's some sort of purity test. The only difference between a course with 5-10 bunkers and a course with none, is that the latter would be trying to market itself for having no bunkers, even when it's likely having 5 or 10 bunkers would have made it more interesting.
-
I have posted this photo tour link before when discussion of bunkerless course comes up:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html)
Guess it depends on your definition of great but Arrowtown is certainly interesting!
Grant: Was Arrowtown entirely bunkerless? I can't remember now.
One of the reasons I dislike this discussion is because it's some sort of purity test. The only difference between a course with 5-10 bunkers and a course with none, is that the latter would be trying to market itself for having no bunkers, even when it's likely having 5 or 10 bunkers would have made it more interesting.
It's entirely bunkerless
-
I have posted this photo tour link before when discussion of bunkerless course comes up:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html)
Guess it depends on your definition of great but Arrowtown is certainly interesting!
Grant: Was Arrowtown entirely bunkerless? I can't remember now.
One of the reasons I dislike this discussion is because it's some sort of purity test. The only difference between a course with 5-10 bunkers and a course with none, is that the latter would be trying to market itself for having no bunkers, even when it's likely having 5 or 10 bunkers would have made it more interesting.
It's entirely bunkerless
Not true............. it has a practice bunker
-
I have posted this photo tour link before when discussion of bunkerless course comes up:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.0.html)
Guess it depends on your definition of great but Arrowtown is certainly interesting!
Grant: Was Arrowtown entirely bunkerless? I can't remember now.
One of the reasons I dislike this discussion is because it's some sort of purity test. The only difference between a course with 5-10 bunkers and a course with none, is that the latter would be trying to market itself for having no bunkers, even when it's likely having 5 or 10 bunkers would have made it more interesting.
Tom
That may be true of new courses, but I don't believe it to be the case with the classic courses I know.
Ciao
-
Was Arrowtown entirely bunkerless? I can't remember now.
One of the reasons I dislike this discussion is because it's some sort of purity test. The only difference between a course with 5-10 bunkers and a course with none, is that the latter would be trying to market itself for having no bunkers, even when it's likely having 5 or 10 bunkers would have made it more interesting.
That may be true of new courses, but I don't believe it to be the case with the classic courses I know.
Sean:
Yes, I agree. Most of the bunkerless courses I've actually seen had their own reasons [restrictions in a royal forest or on common land, etc.]. And I must admit I've seen several excellent bunkerless courses in the years since this thread was originated!
My resistance is more from all those years where even so much as a bunkerless hole was promoted as such. Tom Weiskopf used to include one [and only one] on every course, at least in part so that it could be noted on by journalists.
-
:)
Sometimes Tom reminds of Brando's biker character in The Wild Ones
Young lady: What are you rebelling against?
Brando: What have you got?
-
Was Arrowtown entirely bunkerless? I can't remember now.
One of the reasons I dislike this discussion is because it's some sort of purity test. The only difference between a course with 5-10 bunkers and a course with none, is that the latter would be trying to market itself for having no bunkers, even when it's likely having 5 or 10 bunkers would have made it more interesting.
That may be true of new courses, but I don't believe it to be the case with the classic courses I know.
Sean:
Yes, I agree. Most of the bunkerless courses I've actually seen had their own reasons [restrictions in a royal forest or on common land, etc.]. And I must admit I've seen several excellent bunkerless courses in the years since this thread was originated!
My resistance is more from all those years where even so much as a bunkerless hole was promoted as such. Tom Weiskopf used to include one [and only one] on every course, at least in part so that it could be noted on by journalists.
I know what you mean though. Its hard to believe any good bunkerless course can't be improved by a handful of bunkers. I think this is especially true of RAF because it has some scale. Kington could be impoved as well, but even the setting is grand, the scale is small so bunkers with that design aren't as important. BTW...maybe I am in Wesikopf's camp, but I think generally more than one hole shuld be bunkerless. Just as its hard to imagine sand can't help a course, its also hard to imagine that less use of sand can't help a course. The shame of it is archies today have all the advantages of shaping tools to do a great job of it.
Ciao
-
I also hear what Tom is saying that adding a few might help and in some cases it could be true but in others maybe not. Royal Ashdown Forest doesn't need a single bunker to make it better. You don't miss them for a second. The course is great without them.
There are so many other kinds of hazards that can be used that a creative architect can leave out bunkers with out compromising the design.
The same argument could be made for the lack of any ponds or streams or trees or mounds or forced carries or native grasses or out of bounds or ..... I am all about balance and not overuse of one feature or another. However, it is possible with so many hazard options in an architect's tool box to leave one out like bunkers and still build a great (or at least fun and interesting) design.
In all honesty I sometimes feel like a bunkerless hole is more forced than a bunkerless course might be. I am not saying I don't like them, but usually it is clear that the architect just felt "he had to have one of those bunkerless holes in the design".
There is also still ways to incorporate sand on a golf course without having formal bunkers. I wouldn't be surprised if you see one in the next year or so ;)
-
We ended up with 4 out of the 9 holes on Carne Kilmore being bunkerless although 2 of them have natural sand scars designated as through the green.
Because of the violence of the topography, Carne is one course that could probably get by with having zero man-made bunkers in its entire 27. It's harder with flatter courses as you haven't got the vertical contrast as another variable to produce variety.
In the entirely new bunker scheme we are doing at Strandhill, there will be only one completely bunkerless hole (the par 3 fourteenth) but I can honestly say this is the first time I've thought about that so it certainly wasn't forced for show.
-
Slightly OT, but the course I grew up caddying on had one hole with no bunkers, and I ?somewhat? remember that it was attributed to a tradition whereby architects tracing a direct professional line back to Scotland would leave a hole with zero bunkers as a tribute to ??? Have noticed many courses (14th Augusta. etc) in subsequent years with exactly one bunker less hole. Any feedback on anything like this?
-
Bill Diddel had a period of his career when he was dedicated to building bunkerless courses. If I remember correctly, he created his home course with no bunkers. Does it have bunkers now? Yes! His mentoree Pete Dye came in after his death and rebuilt the course with many bunkers.
One reason it may be hard to find great courses without bunkers is that every green chairman in the world can't leave good enough alone, and commence adding bunkers to courses. ;)
I spent a lot of time on a Bill Diddel 9-holer with no bunkers in my youth. When I look at with Google Earth, bunkers have magically appeared on the course in the years since I have been there.
-
I see I'm back to this thread like a moth to a flame, my third go over several years . . . but at least I'm somewhat logically consistent.
We are working on two projects currently that will be bunker-minimal if not bunkerless.
The current one is Memorial Park in Houston. When Brooks Koepka signed on as the consultant, one of my first questions to him was whether he would mind if we built a course with few or no bunkers, and he didn't have a problem with the idea, saying bunkers are rarely a factor in his strategizing. The TOUR is on board with the idea, because it minimizes clean-up issues during rain delays. Also: bunkers slow down play for municipal golfers, and add to maintenance costs.
So, we've been using the ravines that are on-site, new ravines that we've added, the large irrigation pond, and the trees to challenge players, and keeping bunkers to a minimum. There will be nine bunkers on the back nine, and none at all on holes 13, 15, 16 or 17. There may be a few more on the front nine, but we'll be comfortably under 25 for the whole course.
The other project where I have considered zero bunkers is in northern California. That property is blessed with oaks, vineyards, rock outcroppings, and a stream that comes into play on seven holes, plus the most dramatic elevation changes of anywhere I've worked. I would be happy to build it without any bunkers, except that there are restrictions on what I can and can't do in the buffer areas around the streams, and I believe that an occasional bunker in those areas would be better than a lot of grass with restrictions on when it can be mowed, especially right next to the greens. So my bunkerless course may have to wait a bit longer, but I'm trending in the right direction.
P.S. Technically, Tara Iti is bunkerless, but there sure is a lot of sand in play.
-
Tom,
That California site sounds wonderful and from the few photos you’ve shown us on Instagram I imagine it will turn out just the way it needs to sand bunkers or otherwise. I know you’re keen on Hollinwell do the elevation changes in your new routing have any similar traits? I think Hollinwell is so good because it is so blessed with those dramatic elevation changes yet it’s such a wonderful walk.
-
The Farm (new par 3 course at the Hills in NZ) designed by Darius Oliver has no bunkers. Kind of a tip of the cap to next door neighbor Arrowtown. It really works there given the flow of the land and a stream that runs rampant through the course. Just like Arrowtown, you never miss the bunkers or even realize they are absent. Come to think of it, the pictures of Tom’s site in Northern CA looks a lot like the area around Arrowtown.
-
I had a "bunkerless" renovation all set to go in Hilton Head but there was unfortunately a change of plans by management and the project ended up being awarded to Rees Jones :( It happens and is hard to compete with the big names sometimes, but it would have been fun to do and the course would have really stood out as something unique on the island. I think the clientel that frequents that course would have loved it. We planned to use several natural sandy waste areas but nothing that would be considered a formal bunker. I have no idea what Rees will do with the golf course. Maybe he will take our idea and run with it but I highly doubt it, though I have have my ideas/plans used by others before ::) . Honestly I don't care as long as the project turns out ok.
-
ANGC, when it opened, was pretty close. Only 22 bunkers. At least 8 of them not in play for good golfers. 4 holes entirely bunker-free: 7, 11, 15 and 17.
It looks to me like the club could remove some current bunkers, without making the course easier or changing strategy. e.g. take out the front bunker on 12 and you probably make the hole harder. Same with the bunker to the left of the green on 16. The rear bunker on 11 looks mostly out of play; same with the fairway bunker on 10.
I'm guessing ANGC could use slopes and mounds in place of some other bunkers, that would create as many problems for errant shots as sand traps do now.
-
It looks to me like the club could remove some current bunkers, without making the course easier or changing strategy. e.g. take out the front bunker on 12 and you probably make the hole harder. Same with the bunker to the left of the green on 16. The rear bunker on 11 looks mostly out of play; same with the fairway bunker on 10.
I'm guessing ANGC could use slopes and mounds in place of some other bunkers, that would create as many problems for errant shots as sand traps do now.
Interesting.
Atb
-
I will go out on a limb (but a very sturdy one I think) and say that most golf courses would benefit from less bunkering. That doesn't mean by any means that there should be none. However, most courses have too many and a good number that are superfluous and/or just there to further penalize an already poor shot. Good players don't even see most of these and they just impact the higher handicapper. Furthermore, many are there because a lot of architects just love to build bunkers. Some have built their reputation on them.
-
a lot of architects just love to build bunkers. Some have built their reputation on them.
Who would you put on that list?
The only one who really comes to mind for me is Steve Smyers, and even then, Steve’s rep is more about building challenging courses than it is about all the bunkers.
-
Tom,
LOL - That is exactly who I was thinking about - Steven Smyers. He is a great guy and I have enjoyed our discussions together but I tend to feel that sometimes he builds too many unnecessary bunkers. Yes he designs challenging courses, but for most golfers, his bunkering can be far too penal (plus they are a maintenance nightmare).
-
I just chanced upon this round-up of bunkerless golf courses in the UK by the excellent Ed Battye:
https://www.golfempire.co.uk/golf-course-reviews/top/top-bunkerless-great-britain.htm (https://www.golfempire.co.uk/golf-course-reviews/top/top-bunkerless-great-britain.htm)
-
If a course could ever do with less bunkers, it is the revamped Stoke Park(Poges). For the life of me I can not understand why they have done what they have done. To my eye it's an absolute mess. From what I understand, the renovations were carried out in house....
-
I like the idea of having more grass bunkers which are much cheaper to maintain. I'm not talking about 12 inch high grass, just 3-4 inches perhaps, which would provide variety in lies depending on how you rolled or flew your ball in there. Don't need them deep either, but subtle depressions. Most amateurs, myself included, struggle with shots out of deeper rough so while penal it would speed up rounds as you don't have to rake and the super doesn't have to maintain it nearly as much time wise. Just don't make the grass too long where the ball disappears.
-
Jeff,
I also like the idea of using more grass hollows. I am redoing the bunkering on two municipal courses right now and part of the plan is to incorporate more grass hollows and closely mown areas around some of the greens (instead of just bunkers). Having a sand bunker short right on almost every hole is just crazy as 60% of golf shots are missed short right. All you are doing is penalizing the weaker golfer. Variety is so important as it adds to the enjoyment of the game. Less bunkering can also reduce maintenance costs.