[David_Elvins]

I have had a couple of glasses of red and I just wanted to say how much i loved the bunkers at Muirfield.  Specifically the way they were designed to rarely provided a flat lie and stance.  There were quite a few L shaped bunkers that, with a bit of help from the surrounding ground, had the same collection area as a larger O shaped bunker but offerred far more variety and difficulty of shots once in the bunker.  It was also great tp see the bunker shots to the 18th of Appleby and Els.  What an appropriate way to seperate the champion from one of the also-rans (not meaning to be harsh on Appleby).

With the common perception that bunkers are becoming less of a hazard than in the past, do people know if anyone is designing these sort of bunkers in modern day?  

I remember reading Tom Doak talk about different style bunkers at his upcoming course at, I think, one of the Texas universities.  Is this what he was getting at or am I totally off the track?

cheers,

[David_Elvins]

Shivas,

 I agree with you exactly, I loved that they were real hazards.  But what I really loved was how this was achieved.  I had always imagined that IF (and that is a really big IF) I was going build a course with difficult bunkers, that they would just be deeper than the ones that are around on most courses today.  But, alot of the bunkers at Muirfield (eg 18 greenside) werent all that deep.  What a great example of some of the other subtleties that can go into bunker construction and play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Elvins,

I loved the sharp edged unnatural looking bunkers.

The looked and played penal, and were to be avoided at all costs.  A great element within the golf course.

What seems to have gone unheralded is Ernie Els's bunker shot on the last hole of the playoff, it was a great shot.

[Bruceski]

I'm confused. Curtis Strange said it was an easy shot.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok Patrick;  I'll bite

Looking at Chris Hunt's pics from two holes at the links below, can you tell me what looks so particularly unnatural about the bunkers at Murifield?  

Perhaps we just have a different view of naturalness.  At least we can agree on "sharp-edged".  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1026705063

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1026860005

[David_Elvins]

Patrick Mucci,

What? No questions?  You dont want me to define anything? Thats a relief

No seriously, I totally agree with you about Els.  Especially, as I alluded to above, when you compare it to what Appleby did 20 minutes before.  And was it Faxon who hit it to three feet off his knees at 18 in an earlier round?  All great examples of how good architecture can lead to an exciting tournament for the viewers.  

Also my own opinion is that I really believe it is the trouble shots, the ability to play non standard shots, that seperates the great players from the good.  I would love to see more of it in major championships.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Four days of viewing the tournament provided me with innumerable, if not unlimited views of the bunkers.

They were sharp edged and unnatural looking PITS.

And, I love em,

Curtis is STRANGE.

Ball near the back edge, right foot out of the bunker, steep bunker wall, pin a good distance away necessitating a full swing, BRITISH OPEN ON THE LINE ON THAT SHOT.
Yeah, that was an easy shot, just like a three/four/five foot putt to win the Open, nobody misses them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Would you also characterize the bunkers at Garden City as "unnatural looking"?

[Ba Ba Black Sheep]

Are not pot bunkers native to the links? They looked natural to me. Baaaaaaaaaaa!  

[Matt Schulte]

Not only are the bunkers seemingly perfectly placed but the way the land is contoured around them to collect balls trickling weakly in their vicinity.  The brilliance of that shaping is, as was stated earlier, it doubles the effective size of the bunker and often results in either a compromised stance, swing, or available playing angle.  Truly accomplishing their intended goal, to often be a one stroke penalty.  In addition, the bunkers are generally visible from the tees and fairways unlike at many links courses and the contouring of the fairways seldom takes a well struck ball and kicks it well sideways towards a bunker.  

[GeoffreyC]

Mike - compare the bunkers at Muirfield with those at Sand Hills.  Every bunker at Sand Hills is/was a blowout.  Totally natural made by the wind and the elements. Not a single hazard was created by man on the whole course!

I love the bunkers at Muirfield.  They are beautiful man made hazards.  They fit into the land very well and serve their purpose as well as any bunkers on any course in the world but those stacked sod walls and sharp edges are a far cry from sheep holes.  

[Mike_Cirba]

So Geoffrey;

I'd assume from your definition that you'd call the man-made bunkers at Muirfield, Garden City, and anywhere else where they were done by man to be "unnatural looking".

By definition, almost every bunker in the world is unnatural, excepting those at The Old Course (which look very similar to Muirfield's and probably have as much of the hand of man these days as any) or Sand Hills.  

The term I was objecting to is "unnatural looking".  

When I think of that term to describe golf architecture, I think of features that are visually and sensorially (if that's a word) incongruous to the site and that stand out as poorly integrated with their surrounds.

Do you see my distinction?

[GeoffreyC]

Mike- I understand your distinction.  

The bunkers on the old course have much more of a manmade look these days as well.  They're all very tidy.

Do you understand my distinction of all others with Sand Hills?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey;

There are a few select people out there who are still making natural looking bunkers (we all know who they are), but yes, I clearly understand your distinction with Sand Hills, which were mostly carved by wind.  

But, you know as well as I how a "natural looking" bunker differs from a "unnatural looking" bunker, whether they were both man-made or not!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

BA BA Black sheep answered the Garden City Golf Club question for you, but let me add my version as well.

No, I do not consider GCGC bunkers natural, or natural looking.

A.  If they are natural, then every other bunker on Long Island
     is unnatural.

B.  Deep Pits, that can only be entered by ladder don't fit my
     definition as natural bunkers on the Hempstead Plain.

C.  Many are clearly artificial, created by man.

Now, I will tell you that with the exception of a few holes,
I love them.  I like their penal nature, I like the strategy they MANDATE.  I like how flag poles denote disaster, and how those flag poles seem to have a magnetic quality, drawing golfballs to the advertised location to avoid.  I like the invisibleness some of them possess.  I love the challenge they present to the golfer who finds them.

But, they don't strike me as naturally evolving bunkers, rather deep pits created by the architects.

[Ba Ba Black Sheep]

Every bunker at Sand Hills is a blowout? Are you sure? Sand Hills must not be very close to the cruel sea, or maybe they don't have any sheep.

When was the stacked sod introduced to links golf and why? Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Bradley Anderson]

The Muirfield bunker is a great model for anyone who wishes to provide more affordable golf.

In America they would have to have a fairly deep drain tile under them, and the sod walls are certainly more expensive to build than a flashed sand bunker, or a lobed bunker. But the daily maintenance would be be nothing compared to the monstrosities that we rake and edge to perfection.

The Muirfield bunker shows us that a hazard does not have to be large, and expensive to keep, to be an effective way to define the game.

Muirfield bunkering is small but more in number, as opposed to large and few in number. But the size is expanded by the fact that they are below grade, and everything else around them filters to them.

I have to think that a golf course in America, designed to this model, would be very economical to maintain. But we have a thing about building everything above grade.

The cost of the game in America will never be brought back to reality, until we bring the game back to ground level.

[Peter Goss]

I agree with David's comments about Muirfield's bunkering and would like to put it in the context that golf course architecture should have a wide variety of styles (not just with bunkering)  to be interesting. There can be no stereotype that is the "right" or "best" style (nor "worst" style). Pot bunkers work very well at Muirfield just as  Mackenzie's bunkers do at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath. Lovely to have such variety on the planet.

[Peter Goss]

I agree with David's comments about Muirfield's bunkering and would like to put it in the context that golf course architecture should have a wide variety of styles (not just with bunkering)  to be interesting. There can be no stereotype that is the "right" or "best" style (nor "worst" style). Pot bunkers work very well at Muirfield just as  Mackenzie's bunkers do at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath. Lovely to have such variety on the planet.

[Peter Goss]

I agree with David's comments about Muirfield's bunkering and would like to put it in the context that golf course architecture should have a wide variety of styles (not just with bunkering)  to be interesting. There can be no stereotype that is the "right" or "best" style (nor "worst" style). Pot bunkers work very well at Muirfield just as  Mackenzie's bunkers do at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath. Lovely to have such variety on the planet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

A lot of bunker construction is dependent upon drainage, and that shouldn't be overlooked.

Try building a deep bunker below grade in Florida, it would make a nice hot tub.

[Brian Phillips]

Bradley,

That is a fair point you made but the area Muirfield is classified as poor for agricultural use which means it drains very well...sand!! A whole golf course with USGA spec!!

When we design a hole with bunkers, first we look at the strategic placement of the bunkers then we have to find out where we are going to drain them.  It is not often that you get given sites like Sand Hills where drainage is not much of a worry.

I am now designing a course around and in a peat bog (probably not allowed in the US) and all the greens and fairways have to be above the bog so that we can drain the greens and bunkers into the bog.  Not an easy task and not easy to create greens which can be played with the ground game.

The bunkers at Muirfield are built with sand as the base so they drain perfectly.  Not one puddle in any bunkers on Saturday!!

The bunkers at Muirfield are similar to that of Lytham in that a whole area of grass around the sand is part of the bunker as this area is formed to collect balls into the bunker.  If you land just a couple of metres around a bunker..wham...your ball gets sucked in!!

Brian

[TEPaul]

Brian:

You're building a course in a peat bog, are you?

I suggest a local rule at that course that when it gets extremely cold on the course that it be permissable for golfers to cut up small pieces of the architecture and burn it to stay warm.

Over time it will be considered one of the more unique and interesting examples of architectural evolution!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()