Get in the bunker!

[Rick Shefchik]

Many here like to see bunkers that are truly penal, rather than simple strategic (or worse, eye-candy). That would seem to be in keeping with the general philosophy of the classic-era golf course architects. Many of us also like the look of shaggy-edged bunkers, also suggesting classic-era design.

But those philosophies seemed to collide when I clicked on this photo of the 3rd green at Royal County Down:

 

It's a great-looking bunker, and a great-looking green. But there's no question where I'd want my ball to end up, given the choices presented here, if it weren't going to find the putting surface.

In this case, does the excessively nasty rough detract from the effectiveness of an otherwise great bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

I think part of the answer may lie in the length of the approach shot, and the juxtaposition of the green, bunker and difficult rough.

[James Edwards]

Rick,

Excellent point and one well worth making...  

I have a problem with your question above as most on here know, and I know Mr Doak wrote an article on it in 1991 I believe - I have a problem with the top players shouting "get in the bunker" and then getting up and down routinely in 2 from it... especially on par 5's!! but in this case I can understand why they would shout it!

Yes, it does look good, but what are we trying to achieve with it?  

[Darren_Kilfara]

Personally, I've come to the opinion that there's more to golf than fairness. I think the aesthetics of the pictured bunker are so fantastic that they more than justify an apparent inconsistency of punishment between the bunker and the grass around it. (I happen to think that this bunker is deep and far-enough removed from the green to be plenty punishing, but that's neither here nor there...) Form doesn't always follow function - re: your question, James, about "what we are trying to achieve with it", you don't necessarily have to supply an answer measured in terms of rewards, punishments or the balance between the two.

Cheers,
Darren

[ForkaB]

The RCD bunker as presented in the picture is a place of refuge in a sea of troubles.  It does not "tie in" to the fairway, and is "anti-strategy" personified (i.e. the more poorly you execute what you are trying to do the more you are rewarded).  Regardless of whether or not you like the look or don't (I don't), you must ask the question as to why it is there in that form.  To me it screams:  "GET IN THE BUNKER!", as Rick surmised.  Great architecture?  Not.

[Andrew Summerell]

We automatically assume that bunkers have to be the most punishing hazards on any particular hole. That's very closed minded.

I agree that bunkers should not be an easy up & down, but that does not mean they have to be the most punishing aspect of a hole.

There are many ways to defend a hole & entice a golfer into playing a shot he/she should not have.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew Summerell,

The bunker would appear to be a one shot, perhaps two shot penalty.

That rough could represent a lost ball, unplayable ball or unextractable lie, or a combination of all three resulting in an X on the hole, and slowing down the entire golf course.

Some architectural features, and/or maintainance practices may be excessive and counter to the purpose of the game.

What's next, Summo Wrestlers, machine gun nests and mines ?

[Matthew Mollica]

Very interesting points raised here.

Long grass adjacent to a green can be a troublesome hazard, as can a bunker. Doak's article on short grass defending greens is a great counter point to this approach.

I like the notion of the bunker being a hazard but not the most troublesome hazard in a particular greenside zone. To me, the picture is beautiful and the bunker looks great. If I'm not striking the ball well, that entire region is a no go zone because of the team of sand trap and adjacent scary unkemp grass / weed.

"Get in the bunker" is something I hear a bit at one of my home courses. I doesn't upset me greatly, although I do get tired of hearing it during the US Open. Do others share this view and are we likely to hear this phrase as readily at Shinnecock?

Matthew

[James Edwards]

Rich,

Im in full agreement..

Bad Shots should not be rewarded - IMHO.

[Steve Wilson]

Is this bad architecture or a bad maintenance choice?  What if the grass by the bunker and between it and the green were more closely cropped but the rough short of the bunker were left long and snarly?  In that case the more poorly you executed the more likely you would be to have a lost ball or an unplayable.  But would that destroy the look the of this bunker?  

I think I'm with Darren on this one.  The aesthetics of this bunker in this case outweigh whatever architectural shortcomings it may have.  And even though I'm fully capable of putting the ball in the bunker and then dumping it into the tangled snarl on my escape(?) from it (which raises the question "What is the shortest shot ever to result in a lost ball?"), this might be the one place in the world where I would be shouting "Get in the bunker."  

[Darren_Kilfara]

I think it's a bit narrow-minded to view the bunker as one architectural feature and the rough around it as another. To me they're one and the same, and just as one section of a bunker can be less penal than another, or just as some portions of rough in the same area can be thicker than others, not all portions of the same bunker + hazard are created equally. James, I think the equation "bad shots should not be rewarded" is too simplistic and deterministic...is there no place for luck in the game?

I do have a problem with neat and tidy bunkers with perfect sand and easy escape routes which are surrounded by gnarly rough. You do occasionally see this type of bunker at the US Open and, especially, at certain PGA Tour events. If there really is a huge advantage to be gained from being in the bunker instead of the rough, that's as much a maintenance meld problem as an architectural one, and it needs to be addressed. However, the RCD bunker I see in the picture has difficult rough around it *and* a high lip which, combined with its distance from the green, makes it less than easy to escape from sand. I don't think it applies in this case.

Cheers,
Darren

[James Edwards]

Darren,

Everything you have said has fair argument as usual. In my earlier post I agreed that it looks superb..

I just want to design a green complex where the further out you get the harder it becomes.. like shooting, the further out you are the less points - Is it possible, Im sure going to give it a good go..

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[James Edwards]

I would have no problem either if the sand was unprepared, but it is..  Make this bunker environment the same as its surrounds.... rough...

[ForkaB]

I'm still with James.  Why not put a patch of fairway grass where the sand is.  If it were cut tight enough it might even be more difficult to get out of than the carefully raked sand.  I see the sand as either superfluous or an oasis or just eye candy (if it's mostly out of play, as the picture implies).

[James Edwards]

Yes Rich, Agreed...  It is out of play

Its not even eye candy Rich, the bunker is blind for that particular shot as well..

[Mike Hendren]

Some observations/questions:

Just how gnarly is that grass?

You critics must have mastered the one shot that eludes the professionals - the long bunker shot.

Why can't a bunker be anywhere?

Doesn't the bunker warn that this general area is not a good place to be?

If it's out of play, wouldn't anyone who finds it have a difficult time extracting themselves from it.

Did it occur naturally (As Gene swears every single bunker at Sand Hills did ) or was it placed there by an architect?

Would you prefer the surrounds be kept at fairway height to make the bunker less desirable by comparison?

Mike

[James Edwards]

Mike,

Stand in a practice bunker for a morning, which is something I have had the privilege of doing with some of the best bunker players ever statistically, Johnstone, Faldo, Player and see if they struggle with long bunker shots, I think you woul;d be surprised when they make comments like, Im going to spin this against the slope left to right... or 2 bounces and in on this one!  

Rough the sand up..

IMO the bunker would fit better if the sand was prepared like the other 75% of it... as it is sitting in the rough, a long way in the rough.. nothing will change aethetically, just the playability

[A.G._Crockett]

If the bunker is in fact an easier shot that the rough around it, then that is by chance, isn't it?  The bunker would be better than most lies around the green, but that wouldn't be true of every lie in the rough, even in this particular case, so the player deals with the outcome as it arises.  If EVERY bunker lie is worse (or better) then the game becomes too predictable and is diminished.

As to the pros, when they are yelling "Get in the bunker!" often that is because the bunker is what they are aiming for!  They are hitting a club from fairway rough that won't hold the green, and the bunker is better than the rough around the green, so they make a choice.  I watched this at the PGA at Atlanta Athletic Club a couple of years ago on the first hole on Sunday; I'd submit that intentionally hitting into a hazard from heavy rough, then getting up and down is as decent a test of skill as anything else!

[ForkaB]

BTW

Am I the only guy in this group who yells "Get in the bunker!" precisely because I do NOT want my ball  to go in the bunker, and assume that since the ball is listening to me and will do exactly the opposite of what I ask it to do, it is more likely that it will end up in a nice chipping lie instead, or even, on those holiest of holy days, hit a rake and boucne up onto the green?

[James Edwards]

Sounds like the bunker has to be redefined...  here I go again, bunkers are not hazards.... sorry! but they are not as much of a hazard as rough is IMO...as per the picture shown.  Which one is preferred gentlemen?

Well, thats fundamentally where my argument lies (pardon the pun) that shouldn't be the skill, the skill should be the strategy of the hole..  What happened to wedging back to the fairway and hitting the ball close from there?  No, I can get my ball into the front HAZARD?? ?? bunker and up and down it..  rubbish!

Please dont say now that we want to preserve the game and stop technology..!  

[A.G._Crockett]

James,
Why does it have to be one way or the other?  For some players, albeit probably bad ones, that bunker shot might be well-nigh impossible!  On some shots, a player might get a perfectly good lie in that rough where the grass had been stepped on or was thinner for some reason.  Isn't the serendipity of the whole thing part of the attraction of our game?

[mike_malone]

 I just drove past Merion.You certainly would want the ball in the bunker.The grass around the bunkers looks like an abandoned house's yard!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Malone;

I'm going to have to drive by myself for a look.  

Weren't they always the "white" faces of Merion?  After reading your comment, and hearing Jamie mention the other day that the bunkers had "eyebrows", I'm guessing that the club has decided that the way to make the thickly bluegrass-faced bunkers "look" classic is to let the lips grow wild.

Necessity seems to be the mother of invention here.  It's a necessary compromise, I guess, but no one can seriously claim that's how they looked in 1930 or any other year of the club's history.

[Dan Kelly]

Am I the only guy in this group who yells "Get in the bunker!" precisely because I do NOT want my ball  to go in the bunker, and assume that since the ball is listening to me and will do exactly the opposite of what I ask it to do, it is more likely that it will end up in a nice chipping lie instead, or even, on those holiest of holy days, hit a rake and boucne up onto the green?

That's exactly why I AIM at the bunker.