[wsmorrison]

Playing a course like Merion East, where the bunker scheme has not been changed (except for depth) for 75+ years and much of it for longer than that, it occurs to me that there must be something about the placement that retains a significant demand on modern golfers and in some cases (cross bunker on the 1st for example) places a higher demand today than in the past. 

Designed-in elasticity, or the ability to lengthen a golf course without strategic disconnects, certainly has a lot to do with standing the test of time.  Flynn and a few other classic era architects understood elasticity and their courses stand the test of time better than others that failed to take it into account or where property boundaries prevent elasticity.  However, it needs to be determined whether the property constraints is an artifact of the failings of the architect, the direction of the club or the realities of the land available.

The natural or random bunkers at The Old Course seem to pass the test of time, except for Tiger Woods 

Which courses have bunker schemes that stand the test of time?  Which courses have bunker schemes that fail the test of time?  Finally, what are the characteristics of bunker schemes that do pass the test of time?

[Sean_A]

Wayne

Before we get too deep into this discussion, I would ask first and foremost, how much do the sheer number of bunkers being slapped in "help" to keep its overall scheme relevant?  It seems to me the three courses you selected all have an inordinate amount of pits.

Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

Sean is right about that ... the notion of a "bunker scheme" presumes that you are defending the strategies of the course primarily through bunkering, so there will be fairway bunkers in play for every player on more holes than not.

To me, the three key characteristics of fairway bunkers are as follows:

1)  They complement the orientation of the green and greenside hazards;

2)  They are placed at different distances on different holes [which many people have misinterpreted as being placed "randomly"]; and

3)  They are placed to fit with the topography of the hole.

The last is the most important for long-lasting bunkers.  If there is topography to fit the bunkers into, it is hard to move them without them looking stupid, so clubs tend not to move them.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I think you're right that it's basically all about elasticity and even that needs to be analyzed hole by hole as to how enduring it is in concept of strategy.

Of course we pretty much are talking about tee shot or fairway bunker schemes here and not green-end bunkering.

Cross bunkering of the type that PV has so much of is an interesting strategic transition from the old days and their strategic concepts to today's strategic concepts particularly for the good and long players of today. Originally, those crossbunkers were more for second shots if the first shot wasn't good but today most all of them sort of just strategically gear down the good and long player off the tee.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

If you look at a course like mine---GMGC, there are almost no original Ross bunkers that have much of any meaning to today's good players. Matter of fact, originally Ross only put tee shot bunkers on about 4-5 holes.

To me, this is a good example why Ross was such a good "second shot" architect, particularly with good "members' courses".

[Rich Goodale]

Semi-agreed, Tom P

The best bunker "schemes" are the ones that most eschew bunkering, but not only on the fairway but also at the green.  These days (probably all days, come to think of it), most bunkering is eye-candy, particularly greenside bunkering where bad shots get more rewarded than punished, except for the terminally incompetent.

Rich G

[Adam Clayman]

Diagonal cross Carries always make me think more. For that reason they have stood the time test. Having first seen Nugent use them then Dye, Langford and finally Mackenzie, their characteristics are universal in a risk reward sense. The only team I've seen botch the concept is Nicklaus.

[Mike_Cirba]

One bunker strategy that I believe stands the test of time is what I saw employed at Inwood yesterday.

We are often critical here about bunkers that are on the "outside" of doglegs, but these were placed right AFTER the turn in the hole.

What that meant from a playability standpoint is 3 things;

1) You needed to take a more aggressive line (inside) the bunker, but that usually brought more serious trouble into play.

2) If you slipped up and didn't take the aggressive line, you'd usually end up right in the bunker.

3) or, you could lay back from the bunker with something less  than driver, but then you'd have a much longer approach.   On a number of holes this would make a 3-4 club difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

I don't think the answer lies within the architectural configuration of the bunkers, rather, I believe it lies within the cultural fabric of the individual club.

[Carl Rogers]

10th hole ANGC .... why does the club keep the big bunker in the middle of the fairway 80+ yards short of the green but way out of driving distance from the tee when they have been willing to compeletely re-do many times all sorts of other holes and other elements through out the course?

Why does this non-playing bunker survive?

[Kalen Braley]

Carl,

Its my understanding the bunker very much comes into play for the members when they hit a less than stellar tee shot.

Besides, its just about the last piece of work on the course that is pretty much all MacKenzie!! 

[Adam Clayman]

Wayno,

I don't think the answer lies within the architectural configuration of the bunkers, rather, I believe it lies within the cultural fabric of the individual club.

At what time during the life cycle of a club, is it's cultural fabric evidenced by it's bunker schemes?

[Carl Rogers]

Kalen,

I thought that the 12th hole at present was all and only MacKenzie???

[Bradley Anderson]

As golf courses age they tend to play longer because the organic component in the soil increases at the surface over time. So the distance that has been gained from equipment is rolled back at least partly by conditions, although not all the way back, if even half way back for that matter. But organic build-up is a factor.

A bigger factor I think is if the first fairway bunkering is tied in with the natural terrain. That kind of bunkering has a betterchance of remaining relevant over time because the terrain helps to feed the hazard.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

10th hole ANGC .... why does the club keep the big bunker in the middle of the fairway 80+ yards short of the green but way out of driving distance from the tee when they have been willing to compeletely re-do many times all sorts of other holes and other elements through out the course?

Why does this non-playing bunker survive?

Because it's in play for the membership.

Everyone seems to forget who plays the golf course every day during the season other than 4 days every April

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

I don't think the answer lies within the architectural configuration of the bunkers, rather, I believe it lies within the cultural fabric of the individual club.

At what time during the life cycle of a club, is it's cultural fabric evidenced by it's bunker schemes?

When they get changed.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

I thought that the 12th hole at present was all and only MacKenzie???

Carl,

Its my understanding that even that hole has changed quite a bit from its original incarnation...granted probably not as much as the others.

[JNagle]

Looking at in terms of the three elements we so often talk about when consulting thoughts are as follows

Strategy - The essence of playing the game, creating interest and challenge for the golfer, no matter the ability.  All of the key phrases apply; risk/reward, heroic play....  Utilizing a diagonal echelon of bunkers that allow all strengths of golfers to negotiate (The 5th at Newport or the 15th of Suacon Grace are wonderful examples).

Naturalness - We have seen more bunkers being removed that did not fit with the surrounding natural topography.  The thought of placing a bunker here or there with it blending naturally becomes bothersome even for those with an untrained eye.  "it just doesn't feel right"  One thing that I love about Tom and his guys, Gil, C&C and much of the recent movement is that there is such randomness is the positioning of bunkers and yet they appear to natural.  As though they belong.  So many of the classic courses we study have those bunkers that were plopped somewhere for one reason or another but were constructed in such contrast their surrounds that they do not fit.  That is not to say the bunker is in a bad position it is in the execution of the construction.  

Variety - Tom hit the nail on the head relative to positioning.  We get tired of seeing holes where greens (and fairways in some instances) are always bunkered left and right.  Hole after hole, it gets boring.  The course becomes indistinguishable.  And yet, we have seen courses with a plethera of bunkers creating a sensory overload.  Variety is necessary when thinking of length, position, groupings, left vs right side........

[Adam Clayman]

Kalen, Carl, I believe the distinction is that #10 is the only Mackenzie Bunker remaining.

Pat, Do changes reflect the whole club or the current committee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, Do changes reflect the whole club or the current committee?


What difference does it make ?

Next you'll ask: Is it a unanimous committee vote, a split vote with the President deciding ? etc., etc.. 

For the membership vote, you'll ask: did all members vote, who abstained, was their a clear majority or just a slim majority, etc., etc..

If something gets done and subsequently, when new leadership is in office, and the status quo prevails, one has to feel that the committee and membership has accepted the change as permanent, rather than an aberation that will be remedied/restored

[Peter Pallotta]

A bigger factor I think is if the first fairway bunkering is tied in with the natural terrain. That kind of bunkering has a betterchance of remaining relevant over time because the terrain helps to feed the hazard.

This seems to me a very good point by Bradley.

I was struck by the words "feed the hazard". I'd imagine that bunkers tied to the natural slopes/tilts of the fairway have the potential to remain relevant longer, and for the widest range of golfers, i.e. if the playing conditions are right, such bunkers test not only distance and accuracy, but ball control --  the ability to fade it into the right to left slope and draw it into a left to right slope so as to avoid the golf ball rolling into/feeding the hazard.

From the pictures I've seen, I think Flynn did this -- i.e. tested ball control --particularly well.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Not flowing with the terrain is the fastest way to jar my eye. How do you think angular features fit's into this discussion?

Pat, You better not speculate toady. I have no more questions on the subject. Your comment seemed odd in response to Wayne's post and I wondered if you only meant it on the day the original design opened. Apparently you did not. Knowing that a benevolent dictatorship is best suited for such decisions, I wondered how that individual's characteristics translated to the culturl fabric of a whole membership.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam - me too. If you mean features that run along at an angle (like a diagonal ridge across a fairway), I think they're excellent -- just about the best form-function relationship there is, especially in terms of staying relevant over the years. And I can imagine that on the right site, such a diagonal bunker, flowing out of or into the natural slope/tilt of a fairway, would be grand.  If you mean angular-shaped features (like squarish/straight-edged bunkers) I have to admit that, while I do almost all of my golfing on sites that aren't naturally sandy and thus have learned to make allowances, that would be very un-pleasing to me besides being unnecessary, either from an aesthetic or a playability context. But I have a feeling I didn't capture/address all the nuance of your question...

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Yes I was referring to the juxtaposition to the nature of the str8 lines found in the feature works or Raynor, Banks, Langford and Dye.





For some reason, these features provide a wonderful golfing experience (when smartly done).

I'm not sure if it's hypocritical on my part, because I like them so much, or, the essence of the mere juxtaposition that intrigues??

[Andy Hughes]

One bunker strategy that I believe stands the test of time is what I saw employed at Inwood yesterday.

We are often critical here about bunkers that are on the "outside" of doglegs, but these were placed right AFTER the turn in the hole.

What that meant from a playability standpoint is 3 things;

1) You needed to take a more aggressive line (inside) the bunker, but that usually brought more serious trouble into play.

2) If you slipped up and didn't take the aggressive line, you'd usually end up right in the bunker.

3) or, you could lay back from the bunker with something less  than driver, but then you'd have a much longer approach.   On a number of holes this would make a 3-4 club difference.

Mike, my memory of Inwood is probably not very good any more, but which hole(s) are you referencing?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()