[Greg Murphy]

Golf is a target game played in an outdoor, physical environment.

Missing a target means trouble. Targets and trouble combine to make up the outdoor, physical environment we call a golf course. When the targets and trouble don't seem to fit that outdoor environment, something is usually lost in the experience of that environment.

On the other hand, the game begins with and ends with a ball at rest. The ball must rest on something for us to launch it. Good, interesting, captivating golf courses present a variety and range of targets and trouble, accomplished at least partially, by presenting various surfaces and lies to launch the ball from. The two accepted surfaces are grass and sand.

Sand, because it contrasts so much with grass, really provides an opportunity for interesting visual presentation of targets and trouble. For some reason, to my eye, it seems sand can be introduced within just about any manner of outdoor environment without seeming to be imposed upon that environment, actually enhancing it, but we've all seen examples where the effort falls short.

More than that, though, sand provides an interesting surface to launch the ball from, as an alternative and in addition to grass.

What I'd like to see, is someone come up with novel surfaces to launch the ball from, in addition to grass and sand.

At a course where I play much of my golf, the bunker sand has become so contaminated with clay, they present a distinctive playing surface, like hard pan some days and like mud pits on others, but to date they haven't exactly been lauded as advancements in golf course design by the membership.  

[Dan Herrmann]

I say, "Let's put bunker back in bunkers".  A bunker being a depression in the earth.  Look at the bunkers in Scotland or Bandon (or what Gil's building) - they're REAL bunkers.

A couple of years ago, we were playing a Palmer-designed course (The Carolina, near Pinehurst).  They had a lot of sand traps, but few bunkers.  You could easily hit a 5-wood out of one of their fairway sand traps.  It sure wasn't a hazard - it was easier than long rough.

Honestly - if we got rid of sand traps, we'd be way ahead.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Bunkerless green complexes would need significant undulation and grass cut short for the short game to be multidimensional, I'd think. Wouldn't short grass + gravity also lead to many balls finding the same spots? Would this be a maintenance issue - lots of divots in the same area? Compared to this, a bunker which catches all errant shots in a particular catchment area seems more of an artifice, if the soil isn't sandy, and more of an initial expense, but long term, would it not be more easily maintained?

[James Bennett]

Sean,

How many bunkers are found at Painswick?

Wayne

One, found on the practice chipping green behind #18 green.  Very 'painswick' in concept.



James B

[Doug Ralston]

Tom:

To really go without bunkering, I would have to have a site with a lot of natural undulation as a substitute hazard.  I would probably be much more inclined to use trees as hazards on such a course, too.

But what I would need above all is a client who would consider it.  I think the general consensus would be that you were giving up an important part of the game just to make a point or for some esoteric reason (naturalism), and most people will object to giving up something on that basis.

If you can find me the client and the land I'd be glad to give it a shot ... I think it would be interesting for us.

Tom;

I swear I am not picking on you. You just make a point that is one part of a certain inconsistent 'duality' I see here all the time.

a. We need more 'natural' course design, using what was provided. Tom Fazio [and many others] create courses that a almost completely 'manufactured'.

b. Cut down all trees! Trees inhibit free play. [absurdly] Trees cut down on options. [even] All hazards should be on the ground.

And now it comes. A certain amount of 'unnaturalness' is needed to keep golf traditions, or to cater to the wishes on contractors.

Except for a minority of sites, sand pits do not appear naturally. Grass bunkers certainly can be argued to do so, but no way sand.

And trees appear on VASTLY more sites 'naturally' that sand .

I do not know what answer you see here. My own is eclectic, which is my particular nature. I have played some beautiful and challenging 'manufactured' sites. I have played some stunning and challenging 'natural sites.

To paraphrase: "If you build it 'WELL', they will come.

Besides, I love trees. Just a personal affection.

Bunkers? I can take 'em or leave 'em.

I can easily imagine some great courses without bunkers, but there are plenty of nices one with them.

Doug, the eclectic philosopher, wishes all a Merry Christmas.

[Greg Murphy]

Dan,

We can all remember tremendous shots we've played or observed others pull off. One I'll never forget was by a playing partner, in a scramble of all things. We were nearing the end of the round, playing a long par 4, needing to get some tee shots in from the weakest guy on the team, who had hit a really decent tee shot but sliced it into a fairway bunker. We had other balls in the fairway but chose to take our second shot from the bunker, reasoning that we'd have a tough time getting the ball close enough for a birdie putt even from the fairway and if we missed the green from the bunker we could get it up and down for par with four pitches and four putts.

The first two guys completely flubbed their shots. I was playing to probably a 4 or 5 handicap at the time and I don't actually recall my shot but I'm pretty sure I caught it a little heavy and missed the green short left. The final guy, a scratch or near scratch player, then hit the purest long iron from a bunker I think I've ever seen, finishing pin high to a hole cut on the back upper tier of the green. We made the birdie putt.

Another example. I played Old Works last fall. On the eighteenth I pushed my tee shot into a bunker right. The course has slag for sand and to that point I'd been in it but hadn't played it very well. My second to last shot, though, I made perfect contact from the slag, setting up my only birdie of the day.

Now in each case, if the bunker had been deeper or the lip higher, pulling off the memorable shot would not have been possible. And even though a shot from sand may not strike fear in the heart of better players, I think it is still a significantly more difficult surface, compared to grass, to get consistent good results from.

Years after the shot played in the scramble, I ran into the guy who had played it. Now this is a guy who has played a ton of high level amateur competitive golf but there was little doubt when I reminded him of that shot he had hit that it was every bit as memorable for him as for me.

There's also that shot Tiger hit one year on the eighteenth hole to win the Canadian Open, which I think even Tiger ranks as one of his most memorable shots ever.

I'm not against courses with highly penal bunkers. In addition, though, playing off non-grass surfaces, e.g., sand, in and of itself, can provide some welcome shot making demands and variety, not as difficult perhaps as really short or really long grass, but different and more difficult than fairway turf.

[wsmorrison]

Thank you, James.

Racetrack,

Pocono Manor was designed with bunkers in mind.  For some reason, they weren't constructed.  Here is a drawing (in a very early style) of Flynn's 5th hole, the current 9th.

[Dan Herrmann]

Greg - point well taken.  Thanks for the story
Wayne - I love your Flynn diagrams!   They really are works of art.

[wsmorrison]

Dan,

Did you notice the heights of some of the mounds?  An irregular mound 6' high.  Mounds 6-12' high!  And other mounds 3.5-9' high.  Strategically placed, they could hide landing areas such as past feature C, a mound and bunker complex in the fairway just before the green.  the correct line of play, even in this early design was the outside of the dogleg over the diagonal feature E with rough mounds and sand pockets.  Great stuff!

[cary lichtenstein]

Hopefully, if you are going to remove sand, you will also remove water hazards unless they are meandering streams.

Grass bunkers with irregular grass heights are more challenging and less recoverable.

[paul cowley]

Thank you, James.

Racetrack,

Pocono Manor was designed with bunkers in mind.  For some reason, they weren't constructed.  Here is a drawing (in a very early style) of Flynn's 5th hole, the current 9th.

Wayne ...what a classic reverse 'S' curve of charm.

Who needs bunkers if you have the strategy?

[wsmorrison]

Paul,

I guess with 60-yard wide fairways, he wanted something to think about.  I would think given the topographic nature of the ground, that it wasn't absolutely necessary though it was conventional.  Perhaps there was a lot of rock on site and he piled it up (as he did at Kittansett) and put sand pockets for visual and strategic purposes.  I do like the diagonals and angles of play on this hole.

[Dan Herrmann]

Wayne - do you think the mounding at ANGC #8 serves its purpose?   And what would you do with the greenside mound at Merion East #14?

[wsmorrison]

I don't really know the 8th at Augusta National very well.  It was one of the few holes I didn't study at length over my three days there.  I think the greenside bunkers functioned well, but Flynn's use of mounds usually involved fairway mounds to obscure landing areas or challenge line of play decisions or the toplines of greenside bunkers to obscure pin positions and integrate a slope into the green, often times fronting a falloff.

Now, you ask me about the mound to the left of 14 green (a Flynn green by the way).  



As you know, it was not designed as a mound.  Flynn altered the green for the 1934 US Open.  He moved the center of the green approximately 20 yards down the line of play and created a large left rear lobe in the green.  There is the large threatening bunker on the right and a mound and bunker behind the green.  Recovery shots out of the rear bunker are especially troublesome as the green slopes back to front and the grain runs in the same direction.  Flynn constructed a bunker at the left front corner of the green.  There wasn't a bunker on the pre-1934 iteration green.  So it was thought that the Flynn bunker should be filled in and the mound (added to by evolutionary sand splash) retained.  If it deflected balls out of bounds, I think it would have a more interesting strategic effect and bring the right bunker more into play.  However, it doesn't and players tend to play to the left and avoid the very difficult right bunker.  As it is, the recovery over the mound to the green is very difficult because the mound is a bit too tall and the slope closest to the green is too steep.  I would prefer to restore the bunker.  If not, I think lowering and softening the backslope of the mound so that skillful recoveries are rewarded.

[Steve Lang]

   TEPAUL.. Come on now..are you going to take away kid's sandboxes??   If you subscribe to the premise that "naturalism" in gca is somehow a better offering.. isn't it akin simply to geographical eye candy?

if you want naturalism.. play some yard,  street, and open lot  or park golf.. and leave it as you found it..

[Mark_Fine]

As pointed out, there originally were sand bunkers at Pocono Manor.  Most were taken out over time to reduce maintenance costs.  We have completed the new routing for the golf course and sand bunkers will once again play a part in the strategy and asthetics of the design.  Two new holes will be added to the design and two will be dropped to accomodate the new clubhouse and practice area.  Nine of the holes will be restored as Flynn designed them (very much following the drawings that Wayne posted).  The older original holes which some believe to be early Ross (we are still not sure) are being designed with an Essex County Club look and feel.  We are going through permiting right now and are very excited about the project.  I have to say that I really love the mounding work up there, particularly on the Flynn holes.  It is some of the best I have seen anywhere!  When everything is brought back it is going to be dramatic.

[Philippe Binette]

Does that also means that you can't put grass on a site that doesn't have any to start with...

[Mark_Fine]

Tom P,
I'm curious why Flynn put bunkers in at The Cascades.  Do you really think they look natural there?  Why not just use the natural features of such a rugged site for the hazards?

[Jim Nugent]

I'm still not sure what's supposed to take the place of sand bunkers.  I'd also really like to see how Tom or anyone else might apply this idea some existing courses -- i.e. how can you get rid of the bunkers at ANGC, or Oakmont, or whichever course is appropriate, and still maintain the strategy/challenge.  

[JESII]

I've thought about it a couple of times, and I think Huntingdon Valley could lose at least 80% of its bunkers and not suffer at all...the remaining 20% could go as well just to make a point. If the areas now bunkered were replaced with short grass, the course would be much tougher...for the beter player and probably easier for the not so good...

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,
I'm curious why Flynn put bunkers in at The Cascades.  Do you really think they look natural there?  Why not just use the natural features of such a rugged site for the hazards?"

Mark:

In my opinion, that's a really, really good question, an excellent one in fact.

We (Wayne and I) have always felt Flynn thought of sand bunkering as something of a supplementary architectural feature for hole landforms that didn't have much to offer naturally on their own.

We admit this is an assumption on our part because I don't believe he actually ever said that but his courses and particularly his plans and drawings seem to bear that out so completely.

Flynn was the type of architect who felt that if the client or project allowed it sand bunkers (and other hazards) should be designed and implemented somewhat after the fact of some play testing of the course. He felt their placement would be better if that method was used and he very much did say that and write it.

It's not been lost on me either that so many of Flynn's hole drawings call for grass mounds (not sand bunkers) but that they were rarely constructed and implemented that way on most of his courses.

Wayne and I are not sure why that was and why it happened that way so often.

But if Flynn did feel that interesting natural features and particularly interesting topography could be and should be a viable and perhaps preferred alternative to sand bunkering I sure would think The Cascades would've been the ideal place to try that (other than that stretch from the #13 and #14 and such which is very flat and on which he called for massive amounts of sand on one drawing iteration of one (#14).

Perhaps his client at The Cascades just asked him to include more sand bunkering, I don't know. What I do know is those original Flynn bunkers at The Cascades were pretty odd or bland looking originally (other than their unique surrounding high grass rings) and they were obviously problematic to build because he was just hitting shale and rock right underneath many of them forcing them to be shallow and bland, and they just got much blander over the years particularly when they lost those odd grass rings around them.

So, your question is a very good one and I just don't know other than the speculation above.

On the other hand, we believe that Flynn was the type of architect who probably gave clients and clubs a certain amount of time and opportunity to have their own input into a course design. We think the fact he did so many different hole drawings and iterations on some courses and projects sort of proves that.

It's also odd that he did so many designs on paper that included the basic HHA sand concept essentially creating "interrupted" or separated fairway areas (The Pine valley look and style) which he actually once advertized but those too were often never built and if they were they often didn't last very long.

I don't know how you feel about this kind of thing, Mark, but when I see some of the features used on those Flynn drawings even if they weren't implemented or even if they were removed early on I'm far more inclined to put them back now than if Flynn had never drawn them in the first place.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom P,
I agree with you that The Cascades would have been a great place to reduce and/or eliminate the use of sand bunkers.  Most of the bunkers even to this day are very shallow and not much of a hazard.  

I'm not sure Flynn felt bunkering was a "supplementary" feature as you describe it.  As you say though, he did write about adding bunkers later on after the course was played for a while but that to me signified that he intended to add them.  I have always felt that Flynn's bunkers were well placed and he didn't do a lot of what some might call pure asthetic bunkering.  Of course there are always exceptions.

JES,
I agree with you about "extra" bunkering.  I'd have to think about HV but there are many courses that could lose a lot of bunkering and not miss them.

[Garland Bayley]

I have often played with the idea of sand bunkerless courses. The thing that immediately comes to mind is the deeply grassed hollows that have been used from time to time. The missing facet is the contrast of color. So here's an idea. How about using a contrasting vegetation. Lamb's ear comes to mind as a suitable plant to use. Grow it in hollows where drainage permits, or grow it on natural slopes where soil type would prevent hollows from being feasible.

As for the rules definition of hazard. Who cares! If the ball is difficult to play as it lies, it is a virtual hazard.

And, if Tom D wants to find owners willing to have him build sand bunkerless courses, all he has to do is find a small rural western town hoping to build an nine holer. Perhaps he can find such a place close to Deer Lodge, MT.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not sure Flynn felt bunkering was a "supplementary" feature as you describe it.  As you say though, he did write about adding bunkers later on after the course was played for a while but that to me signified that he intended to add them.  I have always felt that Flynn's bunkers were well placed and he didn't do a lot of what some might call pure asthetic bunkering."

Mark:

I don't know how much Flynn agreed with it or promoted the idea and the term for it but he was very much into a type of new American architecture that was commonly referred to by the likes of Tillinghast and numerous other writers on golf architecture of the time as either "Modern" or "Scientific" architecture.

In my opinion those two terms were used virtually interchangeably back then and they were in fact essentially synonyms for each other.

I'm sure you understand what was meant by that back then, what they felt they were getting away from and improving and what they felt it did and could do for golf and its future, particularly in play.

To them the aesthetic questions of tying other sand bunkers and such that may not have been so strategically or functionally placed into those bunkers that were designed and placed to be strategically important and effective and functional to create some overall natural look throughout probably did occur to them but that's another question.

[TEPaul]

"I have often played with the idea of sand bunkerless courses. The thing that immediately comes to mind is the deeply grassed hollows that have been used from time to time. The missing facet is the contrast of color."

Garland:

I understand that completely but, again, if massively contrasting colors of any material be it sand or various types of grasses were not and are not particularly natural to a site or regional then don't you think a dedication to "site naturalness" should preclude their use?

I most certainly do and I'm getting more that way all the time. If one really wants to consider the various meanings of "naturalness" in golf architecture one needs to consider everything about particular regions and areas and what it means in that context.

I don't think all golf architects should feel they are doing something like decorating the interior of some house, an atmosphere in which they may have a ton of latitude to use anything or everything because naturalness is not much of an issue in that atmosphere, but I think they need to consider these things with a golf course since they are still working in a natural atmosphere and environment with any golf course.

This is, of course, if they really are interested in considering all the meaning of naturalness in golf and architecture. Some obviously aren't or don't care much about those things and so they tend to use anything they feel like.

The fact is sand is just not endemic or indigenous to certain regions and because of that it can look out of place and unnatural in them.

I am just not one who subscribes to the idea that just because sand bunkers have become so prevalent in all of golf everywhere that sand can therefore force its way into some regions and become natural looking to them----even on a golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()