News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2003, 09:58:31 AM »
« 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.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul_Turner

Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2003, 01:44:34 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2003, 08:28:59 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Mike_Cirba

Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2003, 08:38:21 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2003, 03:53:24 AM »
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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2003, 07:01:39 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2003, 10:42:04 AM »
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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2003, 12:13:45 PM »
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?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2017, 05:07:05 AM »
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
« Last Edit: April 21, 2019, 03:57:46 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Blackmoor, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend & Alnmouth

Jonathan Davison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2017, 06:05:10 AM »
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.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2017, 10:10:25 AM »
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

BCowan

Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2017, 10:20:21 AM »
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


Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2017, 03:35:57 PM »
If golf had commenced inland would the trend have been for sandy areas on links/heathland courses to be grassed over?
Atb

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2017, 06:10:53 AM »
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

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2017, 06:22:43 AM »
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

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2017, 11:17:28 AM »
The answer is YES for many of the reasons already mentioned plus more. 

Grant Saunders

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2017, 11:41:27 AM »
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!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2017, 07:19:38 PM »
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!


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.

Rees Milikin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2017, 07:25:34 PM »
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!


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

Grant Saunders

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2017, 07:32:42 PM »
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!


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

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2017, 08:45:51 PM »
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!


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
New plays planned for 2024: Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Blackmoor, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend & Alnmouth

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2017, 10:29:06 PM »


 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. 

Peter Pallotta

Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2017, 10:41:44 PM »
 :)
Sometimes Tom reminds of Brando's biker character in The Wild Ones
Young lady: What are you rebelling against?
Brando: What have you got?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2017, 05:24:40 AM »


 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
New plays planned for 2024: Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Blackmoor, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend & Alnmouth

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Without Bunkers?
« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2017, 07:39:50 AM »
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  ;)






Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back