A thread, on a thought that keeps confounding me:

Bunkers evolved naturally in Scotland, from windswept depressions in the sand, aided by animals seeking refuge from the weather.

Sure, they've been refined & stylized there over time, but they're still lineal descendants. 1/7

There may be pockets in the US that such naturally occurring sand creates exposed sand faces and burrows, but they have to be pretty rare.

Might not golf in non-sandy locations be better served by a different type of hazard? 2/7

Here in central Kentucky, we have a diversity loamy soils, with plenty of clay mixed in. We're right on top of giant limestone columns in our plateau. Naturally occurring sand bunkers simply don't exist.

Yet all of our golf courses have bunkers forces into the design. 3/7

Bunkers that cost a relative fortune to maintain; I shudder to think what the man-hour value of maintaining a bunker might be on a per square foot basis.

I realize technology is helping make better quality, better draining bunkers, but that still doesn't make them native. 4/7

Instead of sand, you know what we have? Gulleys. Ditches. Out west they call them ravines or barrancas.

And patchy field fescue grasses. And rock like you wouldn't believe.

I feel like some enterprising architect or superintendent could develop more native hazards. 5/7

On his @feedtheball interview, Drew Rogers @JDRgolfdesign mentioned his idea of a bunkerless course, just wall to wall turf. That would fit so much better in so many parts of the country (or world).

Middle & lower tier courses often struggle to maintain their sand quality. 6/7

Keep bunkers on the coasts and the sand hills/dunes, and on courses that are renowned works of art and significance.

But surely there could be a better design option, something that fits the landscape better, than sand bunkers where they don't occur.

Sigh.

FIN. 7/7