Bunkers - The solution to the distance problem ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are severe bunkers a partial answer to the distance problem ?

Deeper bunkers ?

Bunkers with steeper faces ?

It is reported that Hootie Johnson informed a golfer that no one would get home on the 5th green from the fairway bunkers.

Would DEEP, STEEP bunkers re-introduce RISK/REWARD to the off the tee, to the extent it would act as an impediment to unlimited distance ?

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, sand bunkers are one solution. Another is to simple accept, to a degree, that we are in a wave of "progress", much like when the rubber ball was introduced.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

I think most would accept your "progress" period.

The problem is the advances are so rapid, seeming to come every 15 days instead of every 15 years.

Does rough mean anything anymore ?

Did you happen to see the shot Tiger hit out of fairly deep rough (it did look like he had a good lie) over a green side bunker, stopping rather rapidly, not far from the pin.
(he sunk the birdie putt).  

Tiger has superior abilities, but I think technology played a large part in stoping that ball a short distance after it hit the green.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

What were the problems associated with previous progress periods?

I see a couple off the top of my head for the present evolution.

1) Increased costs associated with construction of 'Tournament' layouts.  Increased length has added to the requirements for raw acreage and the incumbant expenses to prepare for golf.

2) The disparity between the best players and the rest of us seems greater than it has ever been before.  Is golf a game that is enjoyable played at the lengths and expense for equipment required today?  

3) Is it the right thing to do to increase the cost of the game during a period when the industry is overbuilt?

I am concerned at the costs and results of this continued 'Arms race' in golf.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, I saw Tiger's shot. Quite terrific.

Here is my view:

#1 -- Par means too much; I say "let go!" -- who cares if Tiger shoots 51? Does it really matter? No, all that matters is that the TV coverage is terrific and Tiger gets air time; gosh, professional golf is nothing like they way I play or the conditions I play in or even what people I play with are wearing...it is, by design, a different game
#2 -- Easy to toughen a course, but hard to get it done physically as people don't want to change...hey, what casual golfer would want it so tough that he can't play as well as yesterday? Is say "make the courses EASIER for the average golfer" -- close the gap between Tiger and Joe-bag-of-donuts
#3 -- I put much more faith in golf architects and greenkeepers being able to toughen courses (your rough comment is appropriate here) than manufacturers being able to increase distance -- we have more arsenal than they do -- and FAR LESS RULES TO AHDERE TO!!! -- Consider this: within the rules a greenkeeper can cut a pin within 3-feet of the edge of a green, he can quite mowing roughs, he can rake bunkers with a pitch fork, and he can plant tall grass in front of tees -- all without any trouble except the blasted member or PGA or USGA official -- who, by the way, can only cite "guidelines" -- no rules or hard fact against such practice!
#4 -- The history of golf is far greater than any of us admit to -- we all think in terms of a mere thin span of history (for me it is often 1850 to 2002 -- that's just 50+ years) -- but in reality, golf begins 400% earlier, around 1450; think about this for a moment
#5 -- Yes, I like sand bunkers, grass pits, ponds, snake pits, flame throwers, spectators who are allowed to throw cups and yell, I even like the idea of Alice Cooper being able to play loud music at the 2nd tee so Duval can't concentrate -- hell yes, make the pros work harder!

Maybe I've overdone it. I do uphold good manners. But I think we've bent over for the pros long enough. Golf is for the 4,000,000 rounds played everyday by every day people like you and me -- to think it exists for the fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the golfers on earth is, well, a bad direction to head.

We need to comparing what happens on TV with what happens more often.

[Jim Sweeney]

How about just moving a few bunkers into the line of play, and make 'em think about it a little? No. 15 at Oakland Hills has such a bunker. It can be challenged on the left side and have a mid iron to the green, or play safely to the right, and have a long iron in.

I haven't been to the old country, but I believe that bunkers directly in the line of play is fairly common.

Of course, they'd have to be in the 300 yard range.

No need to guarantee the ball can be advanced toward the green; otherwise why try to avoid it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sweeney,

I suggested this in an earlier thread and it wasn't greeted enthusiastically.

Some felt that the higher handicap would be adversely affected.

It would appear that perhaps the idea of "TOUR" golf courses woud be preferred to altering existing and classic courses.

Bunkers have lost their defensive bite.

In a match I witnessed, a higher handicap (10-14) hit his ball into the left side bunker on # 16 at GCGC, about 160 yards from the green.  He walked into the bunker with a METAL WOOD, I turned to someone and said, this match is over.
It was, he hit it three (3) feet from the pin and made birdie.

Between the equipment and the grooming of bunkers, they don't seem to serve the purpose that they were originally intended to serve.

Perhaps it's time to construct more penal bunkers.