Beauty or Burden?

sat 6.15.2024 @ 7:34 PM 

JOE STOEHNER

While reading "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" by Tom Doak, I stumbled upon an interesting perspective: "strategically placed bunkers are the chess pieces of golf course design." Crafting the perfect bunker is both an art and a science. Bunkers near tee boxes, which often appear to be out of play, create unique challenges and strategic complexities that make them memorable elements of a golf course. But what makes designing these bunkers so contentious, and how can architects turn these challenges into effective golfing experiences?

Historically, bunkers were not just hazards but also aesthetic elements that framed the hole and provided visual depth. According to George Thomas in "Golf Architecture in America," a well-placed bunker can serve as a visual guide and add to the course's beauty. However, modern architects emphasize that while bunkers can enhance the visual appeal of a course, they should also serve a strategic purpose. Bunkers originally evolved from natural sand scrapes on links courses, which were hazards shaped by nature and integrated into the landscape. This natural integration is crucial for both aesthetics and playability​​.

Bunkers near tee boxes can have a psychological impact on golfers, even if they are not in play for most. The sight of a bunker near the tee can make players second-guess their club selection and shot strategy. Architect W. Bruce Matthews argues that bunkers should be visible from the tee to serve as psychological and physical landmarks, helping players navigate the course more effectively​​.

Golden Age architects like Alister MacKenzie and H.S. Colt placed great emphasis on the strategic placement of bunkers. They believed that bunkers should challenge players and make them think critically about their shots. Colt famously stated, "The preservation of the natural landscape is very important, for it adds tremendously to the pleasure of the game." These architects often placed bunkers in ways that integrated naturally with the landscape, adding both strategic complexity and aesthetic appeal​​.

Donald Ross, one of the most prolific Golden Age architects, designed courses like Pinehurst No. 2, where bunkers were strategically placed to challenge players without disrupting the natural flow of the course. However, some of his designs, such as those at LuLu Country Club, included bunkers near tee boxes that were later removed or altered during restorations to better reflect the strategic elements of the game​​.

In recent years, some courses have opted to remove bunkers near tee boxes that do not impact play, citing increased maintenance costs and the need for more strategic hazards. For instance, Pinehurst No. 2 underwent a restoration that removed several bunkers near tee boxes to return the course to its more strategic, original design. Conversely, some courses like St. Andrews continue to maintain these bunkers as part of their historical charm and strategic challenge​​.

Critics argue that bunkers should not be placed purely for aesthetics if they do not influence the game. These unnecessary bunkers can slow down play and add to the course's maintenance burden without providing strategic value. I believe there's a time and place for bunkers near tee boxes, but in 90% of cases, they look out of place and strain maintenance and construction budgets​.

Bunkers near tee boxes, while visually appealing, should serve a strategic purpose to justify their presence. The debate continues among architects and golfers about the balance between aesthetics and functionality. As we see innovations in golf course architecture, the placement of bunkers will undoubtedly evolve, but their essence as strategic and visual elements will remain. After all, a well-placed bunker is like a good plot twist in a novel – it makes the story more engaging and memorable.