[Mike Bowline]

I was recently reading a book that was explaining the design philosophy of placing deep, difficult bunkers only near greens and using shallow, flat bunkers away from greens in tee-shot landing zones. The author's explanation is that a tee shot hit crooked should end up in shallow bunkers which should subsequently allow a shot to the green, which a deep bunker would not allow. Deep bunkers nearer a smaller target area (the green) should be more difficult.

This is in stark contrast to fairway bunkers I have played in the UK which allow only a sideways shot (and sometimes only backwards !    The Church Pews come to mind as a USA example of this design philosophy. Are there other USA examples?

I am wondering what is thought of this design philosophy?

[JESII]

Regardless of where they are (fairway or green) I like it when a hole only has a few bunkers, but for them to be nasty...

Think of the bunkers that would be lost if this idea were carried out in full...

[cary lichtenstein]

There are other examples in America. Check out the courses that Jim Engh does, he calls them muscle bunkers and they are true penalties if you hit into them

[BCrosby]

I'm with Sully. If you give people room to play away from bunkers, there's no reason why they shouldn't be nasty, brutish and unforgiving. In fact, they ought to be.


Bob

[TEPaul]

"Regardless of where they are (fairway or green) I like it when a hole only has a few bunkers, but for them to be nasty...
Think of the bunkers that would be lost if this idea were carried out in full..."


Sully, a whole lot of the things you say on here have been more than a little enigmatic to me for a long time but with that statement above I think I read you crystal clear!

[Doug Siebert]

American courses usually have way too many bunkers, but they generally only trouble right by the lip, and you pretty much have to have already missed the fairway to find them!  We need a lot fewer of those and more little pot bunkers mown up to the edge so the ball can roll into it!

The bunkers we have now worry only the mid to high handicaps who are likely to lose one or more strokes, the good players might retool their expectations from birdie to par if they find one.  Give us a few of those centerline (don't really have to be centerline, just IN THE DAMN FAIRWAY) pot bunkers and even the plus handicaps will be thinking about them because those guys really hate to drop a shot!

[Philippe Binette]

My favorite bunker is the tempting one, you have a chance to reach the green from the fairway bunker but... only if you pull a great shot off

[JESII]

Sully, a whole lot of the things you say on here have been more than a little enigmatic to me for a long time but with that statement above I think I read you crystal clear!

Well Tom...I try to do my posting when you are in one of your lucid states, but sometimes the signals get crossed...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I was recently reading a book that was explaining the design philosophy of placing deep, difficult bunkers only near greens and using shallow, flat bunkers away from greens in tee-shot landing zones.

Sounds like a modern day, in the name of fairness mantra.[/color]

The author's explanation is that a tee shot hit crooked should end up in shallow bunkers which should subsequently allow a shot to the green, which a deep bunker would not allow.

That philosophy diminishes or eliminates the strategic importance of the bunker, negatively impacting the play and quality of the hole.
[/color]

Deep bunkers nearer a smaller target area (the green) should be more difficult.

That usually, only works if the soil permits proper drainage or if the green is elevated.

But, I like deep bunkers, everywhere because their depth heightens their strategic significance, and, the golfers need to plan to avoid them.[/color]

This is in stark contrast to fairway bunkers I have played in the UK which allow only a sideways shot (and sometimes only backwards !    The Church Pews come to mind as a USA example of this design philosophy. Are there other USA examples?

GCGC has some deep, nasty fairway bunkers.[/color]

I am wondering what is thought of this design philosophy?


I think it's lacking, coddles fairness and deemphasizes strategy.[/color]

[Clyde Johnston]

I know Tom Paul warned me about this but I agree with Mucci.

[JESII]

I know Tom Paul warned me about this but I agree with Mucci.

You know what they say...the first step towards curing a problem is admitting there is one...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I go along with Sully as well...I am not a lover of bunkers being used to "frame" holes...if you put a bunker there it should be a punishment, but only in a position that deserves to be punished...as for example at Merion, no wasted bunkers on that golf course.

[Michael Powers]

Why not have bunkers  that vary in terms of severity?  Isn't it better to take in all of the factors which affect the play of a hole and then figure out how severe each bunker should play to penalize an errant shot?  I played Fazio course at Berkeley Hall and every fairway bunker was so severe, you could do nothing but wedge out.  I think I read on here that they were softening them. 

[TEPaul]

"I know Tom Paul warned me about this but I agree with Mucci."


Clyde:

Don't you worry about that at all. Here's why.

I know I joke around with Pat a lot on here claiming he's only right about 2% of the time. I'll just say this one time on this post (and hope not too many people notice) but Pat's actually right a whole lot more than that but the reason is he's been pretty well trained by me over the years.

The problem of recognizing that occurs merely because Pat either can't or won't admit he learned everything he knows about architecture from me.

His modus operandi is to listen, filter it in his mind and then in a week or a month or whatever, he tends to regurgitate it on here as if it's an original thought on his part. It isn't.

So don't worry about agreeing with what Pat said above about bunkers. He used to think basically the opposite but I taught him the bunker philosophy he articulated above.

Being Pat's Master Teacher is sort of a bitter/sweet experience but at this point it's probably more sweet than bitter. The man is learning. He's not learning as fast as I would've hoped but he is learning.

[TEPaul]

Mike Bowline:

The degree and severity of bunkering, be they fairway or greenside is an interesting one. The entire concept sort of falls into two basic schools of thought, in my opinion:

1. That bunkering should allow for an heroic recovery shot. This sort of philosophy tends toward the idea that fairway bunkering should be shallower (or that its front face should be more gradual) than green-side bunkering to accomplish this purpose. Interestingly, this philosophy was very much Hugh Wilson's of Merion. He may even have come up with the idea or at least been the one to start it into common use in American golf, thereby creating what Ron Prichard believes to be the prototypical American bunker style and shape. The so-called "White Faces of Merion" were intended not to just promote maximum visibility to the golfer playing towards them but the gradual sand flashed faces of the fairway bunkers were also designed and constructed to promote the heroic recovery shot by allowing the player to potentially hit the ball farther out of them.

2. That bunkers should be of random depths and formations regardless of where they are to create something of a random strategic presentation and experience for the golfer. In this way the golfer must come to know individual bunkers by experience and to deal with them strategically accordingly.

The former philosophy, in my opinion, tends toward formulaics and standardizations in golf and architecture, something I, personally, don't much like although I admit most golfers apparently do. The latter philosophy I believe to be one promoted and endorsed by golfers and architects who tend more towards random (natural) offerings in architecture believing it to be more atuned to the makeup of raw nature and its randomly shaped land forms.

[michael j fay]

The "Church Pews" are a skewed example. When they were built WC Fownes employed deep tined rakes that gave the player little or no chance to advance the ball.

When Harry Vardon played Oakmont the first time he railed about the deep tined bunkers saying that it impeded the player with skill. He was right but it also impeded the player with no skill.

Too many bunkers on American golf courses are decorations. They pose little or no hazard. Many of the Ross fairway bunkers that have been reworked and had their platforms raised present a more desirable lie than the rough that surrounds them. A good player can control a ball hit from a negligibly obstructed fairway bunker much better than he can from four inches of either Kentucky bluegrass (in the north) or four inches of bermuda grass (in the south). The fairway bunkers that RT Jones installed at Aronimink (later removed or altered by Ron Prichard) come immediately to mind.

The bunkers in Great Britain are usually draconian and I believe this is because they are usually the only significant hazards on the course. There is little water and practically no trees.

Over the years I have seen a good number of original hole drawing by Donald Ross. In the margins he gave the proposed depth of the bunker and height of the obstruction. I have never seen one that called for less than 4 and 1/2 feet of depth.

I feel that fairway bunkers should pose a half shot penalty and that they should be mown in a fashion that allows the ball to easily enter the bunker.

[Phil Benedict]

If water hazards are in most cases a 1-stroke penalty, shouldn't bunkers by definition be something less?  I know the half-stroke rule is somewhat artificial but it makes sense to me that, on average, bunkers should be geared to result in a half-stroke penalty.  Some may be more penal, such as links style bunkers that require you to hit sideways, but I don't think all bunkers should be so penal, otherwise they would be the equivalent of water hazards where you don't lose your golf ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()