Unfair Bunkers?

[David_Graves]

I just played a late 12 holes (all we could get in) with a regular playing partner at our home course (Ross, 1921). We discussed a particular fairway bunker that we both felt was unusually penal due to excessive tree overhang between the bunker and the green. My question----why is fairness a consideration? There are bunker situations all over Scotland/England/Ireland that are just tough luck but you rarely hear the word "unfair".

[Ran Morrissett]

The problem isn't the bunker - it's the trees that have grown unchecked in the last 80 years!

There is no such thing as an unfair bunker.

[jglenn]

David,

The problem isn't the tree.

The problem is the quite odd North American concept that, when in a bunker, you should still have a shot at a green.  

That's why we complain when something blocks our way.

[jglenn]

PS  There is no such thing as an unfair tree.  

[David_Graves]

Jeremy,
I could not agree more---if you find yourself in a stateside bunker with no play to the green, how is that materially different that having to play sideways in Scotland.

Ran, I hate the overhang in general but in a sense the penalty has become similar US/Scotland.

[T_MacWood]

The problem is using the term fair in a golf context, golf isn't fair. That being said there are poorly placed bunkers and trees, those that limit strategic choice, mostly trees that were added later contrary to the original idea.

[JamieS]

Jeremy...
You must have grown up on linksland...because around here there are plenty of unfair trees, planted by people called the "new" green committee chairman who over the years wanted to leave their mark(Scab/Scar) on their beloved course. The committee members thought they were the true architects, even though they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Donald Ross & Donald Duck.
Lastly...I do agree that being in a bunker doesn't mean you should have a shot to the green, but...just look at St. Andrews; you wouldn't plant an overhanging Oak or Pine Tree next to the Road Hole Bunker would you? The bunker is hazard enough. My point is that you just shouldn't have to deal with overgrown trees that were never intended to be there in the first place. There are too many great courses that over the years have run into this problem.
You should read the article in "In My Opinion"...Below the Trees. It is a great article that deals with this issue.

[David_Graves]

I use 3W on this particular hole with the expection of a SW second. Everytime I find myself in the bunker, I take my stance thinking i should have hit 4 iron/9 iron. It is a temptress which is a good thing.

[Mike O'Neill]

I played a course over the weekend that had absolutely beautiful trees everywhere. True specimens. I actually found a bunker and was under a large branch. I thought that the position I was in was absolutely fair because I hit the ball there. I knew there was a tree there, trees everywhere. I knew where the fairway was located. I just hit the ball in the wrong place. Cause and effect. Pure and simple. There's not much in the universe that is more "fair" than cause and effect, especially when I have the driver in my hand.  

[redanman]

A tree that prevents exodous from a bunker in a particular direction is way different than a  bunker that prevents exit in a particular direction.

Who here would accept a chain link fence preventing exit from a bunker in a particular direction?  To me it would be no different than a tree inside the bunker line, thank you.

So I agree with Ran, it's the tree that's bogus and all bunkers are fair.

[jglenn]

redanman,

I respectfully disagree.

Amongst the important elements to golf course design, we have the golf course as a sports field, and the golf course as a landscape.

From the "sport field" point of view, a bunker shot that is blocked is just that.  It makes no difference what does the blocking, whether a sod wall, a tree, or a chain link fence.

It is only from the "landscape" point of view that the question of WHAT does the blocking becomes important.  And, depending on the setting for the golf course, a sod wall, a tree, or even perhaps a chain link fence could very well be the appropriate vocabulary to use.

[Mike O'Neill]

redanman,

What if you were just into a hazard, say along a creek bed, and you happen to be behind a tree? Don't you play it as it lies? Isn't that the backbone of the game?

Or what if you hooked your tee shot all the way over into a fairway bunker on an adjoining hole and found yourself behind the trees that separate the two holes? Are those trees unfair?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

I think a tree, that prevents ones backswing in a bunker is an unfair, DOUBLE penalty.

One should at least be able to swing their club in an effort to extract themselves from a bunker, irrespective of the direction one intends to play.

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

I had that exact situation this past weekend. The course had a low branched flowering crab that forced me into an awkward swing. It seemed unfair for a second and then I told myself that if I hadn't pulled my 8 iron 15 yards offline, I wouldn't be in such a mess. As for double penalty, I refer again to the post above regarding landing in the hazard next to a creek behind a tree. Might be unplayable, but not unfair. IMHO.

How about some of the positions one might find oneself in at Pine Valley?

[jglenn]

Patrick,

Double penalties are unfair?

Quite the contrary, "double penalties" (whatever that term came from...) are one of the spices of the game of golf.  They are part of luck, of rub of the green, the uncontrolled variables of the game.

The game's very soul, if you will.

Or would you rather go bowling?

[T_MacWood]

There are many cases of double jeopardy. Anyone who grew up on the treelined fairways of the Midwest, understands that if you stray from the fairway you will be likely effected by trees and nasty rough. The road of the Road Hole also comes to mind, facing a shot off hard gravel and many times no backswing due to the wall. Golf is not fair, ask Tom Watson.

That being said a tree which effects the original strategy or design is not unfair, but undesirable and unfortunate. Why would anyone want ruin a well-designed golf hole's wonderful strategy?

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Wait'll you see the bunker/tree commando hazard left of the second green at Pacific Dunes.  If your ball rolled from green into bunker your most prudent escape is to flop it out to the front of the green as the overhanging branches - grown like gargantuan ladder rungs - bar any acceptable percentage shot to the back of the green.  It's bee-yoo-tee-ful, man.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy, et. al.,

When you are prohibited from swinging at a ball in a bunker, by the limbs of a tree, that I'll guarantee you the original architect never planted, nor ever intended to be there, that's improper.

I'll avoid the word unfair.

Most, if not every bunker ever built, was intended to obstruct or inhibit, in varying degrees, the efforts of the golfer to advance the ball.  I know of no architect who planted trees in or around the immediate perimeter of a bunker.  I know of no architect whose intent was to have tree limbs
interfere with the swing of the golfer who landed in the bunker they designed.  I know of no architect who planted trees, immediately and directly in the line of flight, between said bunker and the green.

Has anyone seen Ross, Tillie, CBM, AMc, or any other architect we revere on this site, create such a situation ?

If not, that should tell you several things,
A.  It's bad architecture
B.  It's a double penalty, never intended.
C.  The tree should go.

I am aware that golf is not always a fair game, and that is part of the game itself, but.... I think there is a distinction between different situations and unfairness.

Is interior out of bounds, in some instances, on some courses unfair ?  I think a case can be made for answering yes.

Is a green like # 18 at Seminole and Southern Hills, shaved to 13 on the stimp unfair  I think you could say yes.

Is a tee shot, or shot from a bunker, where tree limbs impede ones swing unfair ?  I think the answer is yes.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of the reasons to avoid double jeapordy in deisgn is not necessarily that its unfair, its that its "unfun".

I think almost anyone who hits it two fairways left accepts just about anything that comes to him. If you challenge a strategic bunker to gain advantage, and get in it, and it costs you three shots, you aren't going challenge it very often. While that is strategy, the best strategy is tempting, one that doesn't virtually shut off your options because its too difficult to recover.

And, there is great joy in pulling off a recovery shot. Dropping out is no fun at all.

Proper design is a two step penalty - rough or bunkers for the near miss. Trees set back far enough to only be a penalty for the severely wayward shot.

A fairway bunker may also likely have areas in it that prevent full recovery to the green. Ross wrote that it should be deeper at the outside than the inside to punish a bigger miss more greatly. In any event, the possibility that you have the option to, and may or may clear the lip is recovery strategy/execution and it will only cost you one more stroke if you can't hit the green - More if you make the wrong choice and fail to execute....

Far superior to the "impossibility" of not being able to swing, or even being completely blocked by overhanging tree branches....granted, if you can chip out you only lose one or perhaps two strokes, but if strategy is options, and you have no options,golf is not as fun.

Such is the nature of stroke play. If we played match play more often, we wouldn't care if certain holes were over when one competitor hit a certain bunker....but it would still be less fun than that competitor having a chance to make a miracle recovery to halve the hole.

Hardly ever should there be both, and when there is, I guess you just accept it as a player. As a greens committee member? Maybe a different story!

Jeff

[jglenn]

Jeff,

You say: "If you challenge a strategic bunker to gain advantage, and get in it, and it costs you three shots, you aren't going challenge it very often. While that is strategy, the best strategy is tempting, one that doesn't virtually shut off your options because its too difficult to recover.  And, there is great joy in pulling off a recovery shot. Dropping out is no fun at all."

By your argument, you must really hate all those pot bunkers at this place called The Old Course.  As such, if you state that being forced to chip out because of a tree limb is bad design, then I'll state that being forced to chip out because of a sod wall is also bad design.  (Of course, I don't think either is true).

But really, challenging a bunker will always mean "coming as close to it as one dares."  You can skirt a relatively tame bunker by 5 yards, or stay 50 yards from Hell.  The number of shots you think it will take to extract yourself from a hazard does not increase or diminish its strategy.  You will always be TEMPTED to hit it closer.  It goes back to Tom Doak's description of the fairway bunker at the 12th at North Berwick.  A golfer will, over a number of rounds, creep closer and closer to that bunker, until the day he falls in.  The next day, he will stay well clear, but soon begin the process anew.  That, in my books, is great architecture.  And it doesn't matter how severe a punishment, given an appropriate reward, one will always push the envellope to see how much we can get away with.  It's human nature.  The "appropriate" reward or the punishment are very individual values. In fact, I recall Patrick Mucci himself, a while ago, telling me that (according to him, anyway) strategy is improved with a deeper, more penal bunker, whereas I argued that it merely changed the strategy without it becoming better or worse.  The strategy and temptation will vary, depending on a myriad of factors, not the least of which is the abitility and character of each player.

Of course, the first counter-argument to this would be that, if the punishment outweighs any possible reward, one is likely to say "The hell with it", stear clear of danger, and settle for a bogey.  Yet that is the basic concept of strategy:  Offer a reward for those willing to accept the risk.  But give others an easy route to the green, without risk, but without reward."

On another note, I also don't believe that proper design is limited to a two step penalty, as you stated.  Or, in other words, that the punishment should be proportional to the miss.  It goes back to MacKenzie story about the fairway bunker that was way right of the landing area "to punish the severe slice".  Designing this way is connect-the-dot architecture.  Hit here, and then there.  Target golf.  Darts, if you will.

I often compare the difference between strategic golf and target golf to, oddly or appropriately enough, a game of archery with two targets.  Target golf is the conventional game with the conventional target.  1000 points for the bulls eye, then 500, 250, 100, 50, etc...  Strategic golf, on the other hand, uses a different target.  Instead of getting the most points for hitting the bulls eye, you LOSE points.  How many points you lose will not make the game better or worse.  Just different.

As such, the game is not one of mere execution, but also becomes one of strategy and temptation.  How close do you dare?....

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Ross and MacKenzie both designed holes with trees actually in bunkers and also tree blocking the exit from the bunkers.

[Peter Galea]

There is nothing in the "Rules of Golf" which says you must be able to advance the ball toward the target. I have been told there is a bunker or two on the "auld sod" from which you have to play back toward the tee. While I don't like trees (aerial weeds) making a course claustrophobic, I don't have a problem with a misplaced tree here and there.
Take your medicine. Hit the ball. Play the game.

That's just my opinion. (thanks P.M)

[Dan King]

Big nasty bunkers that are hard to escape from can be big fun. What's the fun of avoiding a hazard if the penalty is small?

I'm specifically thinking about the sixth hole at Pacific Dunes (A course that will probably come up a lot as an example of sound architecture.) The 6th is a shortish hole of around 340 yards. Its dominant feature is a 20-foot tall bunker that hugs the left side of the raised green.

You think about this hazard on your drive, because you want to stay along the right side to avoid having to worry about it on your approach. Should you end up on the left side of the bunker you're going to take extra club to ensure you clear this nasty pit.

This hazard is in consideration for every shot through the green on this hole. Make it a little pipsqueak hazard, and it wouldn't even be a concern. Golfers would gamble playing close to it because it is merely a ½ stroke penalty at most. But with this 20-foot tall hazard, you'll try to avoid it and the thrill of flying over it safely on the green is a kick.

But then overdoing this sort of hazard is also just as bad as all hazards being of the ½ a shot version. Variety in hazard design is as important as variety in everything else related to golf courses.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"A good golf course makes you want to play so badly you hardly have time to change your shoes."
--Ben Crenshaw

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Ross, himself, disagrees with you.

Ross stated " If it in any way interferes with a properly played stroke, I think the tree is an unfair hazard and should not be allowed to stand"

Hence I would doubt Ross planted trees in hazards that would interfere with, or impede ones swing.

Could you cite some holes and the course where Ross and Mac inserted a tree, such as an oak, elm, maple, etc., etc.. in the bunker, where the limbs would interfere with the golfers swing.

Palms, and other trees with little foilage, mostly trunk, have been left in or near bunkers, but I'm refering to trees which will grow horizontally, with substantial radii, as well as vertical growth.

[jglenn]

Patrick,

I believe you are giving a far too generous interpretation to Ross.  He was mentionning a "properly played stroke."  Not a recovery shot.  

At any rate, I disagree with Ross.  If a tree interfere with a so-called "properly played stroke", the stroke was not properly played to begin with.  If it was, the tree would not have interfered with it.  The very same thing could be said for bunkers.  

There's a definite bias against trees here.  A double-standard.