Get in the bunker!

[Patrick_Mucci]

James, Rich, et. al.,

Since you can't alter the flight of the ball in mid-air the preference on where the ball comes to rest is beyond your control and strictly a matter of luck, good or bad.

A fried egg or ball imbeded in the bank of the bunker is no joy.
Likewise, a lie in the rough that Paul Bunyon can't extract is no joy either.

Essentially, you have to accept your fate.

But, do the keepers of the golf course want lost balls within a few club lengths of the green, causing the golf course to back up and ruining the enjoyment of the game for everyone  ?

It's not about the look, it's about practicality.

[ForkaB]

Pat

Are you saying that out of play bunkers serve the purpose of allowing the location of wayward golf balls to be better spotted?  If so, why not just turn them into ponds, just as was done at 16 at GCGC?

Also, if you really do not believe that talking to a golf ball can change its trajectory, you are missing out on a lot of the fun of golf.....

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with Darren completely here.

The bunkers everyone says they like feature some sort of random penalty -- sometimes there is no chance for an up and down, sometimes you catch a break, but it's never automatic.

If you extend your thinking about this Royal County Down bunker to INCLUDE the long grass around it, then you have exactly the same thing.  Sometimes you're screwed, sometimes you have a shot ... so you ought to be aiming well away from this hazard if you are concerned about it.  As long as it's not big enough to aim for the sandy part, I think it's okay.

That bunker is a thing of subtle beauty, a small oasis of semi-sanity in a vast wasteland of doom!  There's nothing wrong with a player hitting an errant shot begging the golfing gods to take pity on him and let his ball end up there.

I'm with Darren & Tom on this.  The idea that James J S Edwards has about making a green where the more you miss the harder you gets is terrible.  No concept of a good side or a bad side, no place to miss or place to not miss.  What a completely uninteresting course totally devoid of strategy such a course would be.  James, please let me know any such courses you have identified so I can be sure to avoid them like the plague for the rest of my life!  It's totally missing the point of golf.  If you want to do that, why not eliminate the whole tedious walking about the course bit and just aim at targets on the driving range and get scored based on how far from them you end up?

The problem those of us have (well at least I have) with the easy bunkers most courses in the US feature is because they are presented as a hazard that in theory would require strategy to work the ball on approach, play from the correct side of the fairway, etc. when in fact the bunkers do not inspire any fear or lack of confidence.  If the bunker is no more difficult than the surrounding rough then there's no reason to consider it any different.  If it is in fact easier, as is the case with thick greenside rough, steep slopes, etc. then the only redeeming quality it can offer is anti-strategy -- making the player think it is something to be avoided when in fact it is the desired place to miss.

There is a legitimate role for "easy" bunkers in such cases, but few architects seem to realize this and just figure "golfers are afraid of sand so I'll stick a few random bunkers here and there and make them think about their shot".  A truly beautiful design would use bunkers as strategy for poorer golfers who are deathly afraid of them while using those very same bunkers as anti-strategy for good players who would find them easier than the surrounding hazards!

While granted that RCD bunker is the "place to miss" it is so well surrounded by places you definitely do not want to miss that there isn't any way to take advantage of its relative easyness compared to its surroundings by planning a shot such that a miss will result in being left in that bunker (wherever it actually was in relation to the approach)  And if you are good enough to aim at that and hit it, you surely should be aiming at the much larger green if you possess such superior shotmaking skill!  It simply exists as a way for fortune to reward those who may find it an easier shot, and to punish those who would consider it more difficult.  Like its beauty and its strategy, whether it is fortune or misfortunate to find oneself within its grasp is surely in the eye of the beholder!

[ForkaB]

Doug, et. al.

You seem to have ignored James' post #15, in which he reports that the bunker in question is not only "out of play" it is blind (i.e. you cannot see it from the angle of the approach shot).

So, what we have here is a photograph, which has an interesting composition but has absolutely no relevance as to how that particular golf hole plays.  Maybe that bunker was in play in Old Tom Morris’ time, in one of the previous RCD routings, but today, to paraphrase John Cleese in the classic "Dead Parrot" sketch, that bunker is no more, it is pushing up the daisies, it is an ex-bunker!

Nice photo, but the “bunker” is completely irrelevant to golfing at RCD or to GCA in general, except in the “Don’t do that!” sense or, perhaps, as an architectural “folly.”

[James Edwards]

Richard, again, yes..

Doug,
All Im saying is.. Look carefully at the question - Get in the bunker! I have a problem with it...

You wont want to play Royal St Georges then on your travels...  A good example of bunkers which are still very much in the category of Don't go in the bunker! and progressively tougher shots the further out you get off the centre line.

Who has said what the margins of a good and bad side to miss the green are?  If the designer has designed an area of x metres to the right / left hand side of the green as a bailout, then thats part of the holes strategy - good..  Im saying - 1. Identify the strategy of the hole 2. Hit the appropriate shot that fits the strategy 3. Reward good play 4. punish bad play- If the player takes the risk, reward their boldness or punish there stupidness.

In matchplay if A hits it 30 yards right of Player B and Player A finds his ball in a bunker in the rough and Player B loses his ball in the rough on the edge of th fairway - ON A BLIND HOLE... I personally dont think that is the way we should be going in golf course architecture ---

Richard,
The proposed Itinerary is Royal St Georges GC, Princes GC (Shore, Dunes, Himalyas) Royal Cinque Ports GC, Rye GC, Littlestone GC, North Foreland GC

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I tried that method, but it didn't work for me.

One of the lunatics that plays in my group, and you have to be one to get to play with us, a group that has played together for 40 years, gets very upset if you talk to his ball while it's in motion on the putting green.

At first, I thought he was kidding, but when he hit a putt on our 6th green and I said, "good stroke".  When his ball missed the hole, he admonished me to never speak to his ball, or his effort while the ball was in motion.  Out of habit, I did it again a few holes later and he got upset.  Others confirmed that this new habit/superstition of his was indeed genuine, which of course requalified him for lunatic status for another two years.

To answer your question, NO, I'm saying that there should be a reasonableness to maintainance practices in the context of avoiding lost balls and excessive delays in play.

The term "out of play" is one of relativity, and that's why in an earlier post I mentioned the juxtaposition of the green, bunker and rough as being critical factors.

[James Edwards]

Patrick,

I have one of those group members also..  Could be the same guy!  The only difference is that his works on 30 footers...  Good stroke from me would gain a reply of, no it wasnt the ball didnt go in the hole so it couldnt have been??  weird!!

Also, he has a problem on the tee with his own strike happiness!  As soon as he hits it we say great strike... you can see he is happy with it also, until it falls just short in the cross bunkers and then he will say, didnt quite get that one!

[ForkaB]

Richard,
The proposed Itinerary is Royal St Georges GC, Princes GC (Shore, Dunes, Himalyas) Royal Cinque Ports GC, Rye GC, Littlestone GC, North Foreland GC

James

I assume this is referring to next year's GCA "Ryder Cup?"  If so, sounds great, and fill us in on the details as they emerge!

R

[James Edwards]

Richard,

Yes, if the Americans dont mind having the rematch back in the UK, then I propose these unknown venues in the SE corner!

[Doug Siebert]

Doug, et. al.

You seem to have ignored James' post #15, in which he reports that the bunker in question is not only "out of play" it is blind (i.e. you cannot see it from the angle of the approach shot).

So, what we have here is a photograph, which has an interesting composition but has absolutely no relevance as to how that particular golf hole plays.  Maybe that bunker was in play in Old Tom Morris’ time, in one of the previous RCD routings, but today, to paraphrase John Cleese in the classic "Dead Parrot" sketch, that bunker is no more, it is pushing up the daisies, it is an ex-bunker!

Nice photo, but the “bunker” is completely irrelevant to golfing at RCD or to GCA in general, except in the “Don’t do that!” sense or, perhaps, as an architectural “folly.”

Rich,

I understand that, but the discussion was based on the bunker being in play, and I am thinking of it as an overall strategy/design question, rather than a critique of the design and bunkering of that one hole.  The question is whether a bunker like that in surroundings like that is good or not, with the initial assumption that it and its surroundings are in play.  I don't think the discussion becomes invalid just because it is revealed to us that this bunker is out of play, blind or whatever.