Reducing maintainance costs while increasing the challenge

[JMEvensky]

John Mayhugh,I promise private club members are no more diligent than public course players about raking bunkers.If anything,probably worse due to a sense of "entitlement"-let the people my dues employ rake this bunker.Further,nowadays,the private club player is just as likely to have learned from TV.

When you find a workable censure,let me know.I proposed a sniper on the clubhouse roof but there were liability issues.

[John Mayhugh]

John Mayhugh,I promise private club members are no more diligent than public course players about raking bunkers.If anything,probably worse due to a sense of "entitlement"-let the people my dues employ rake this bunker.Further,nowadays,the private club player is just as likely to have learned from TV.

When you find a workable censure,let me know.I proposed a sniper on the clubhouse roof but there were liability issues.

I didn't mean to imply that the private club player was more diligent about this, only that those of us in the good etiquette majority should be able to find a way do deal with them.  I've been exposed to the sense of entitlement as well.

My thought for censure would be to make all of the inconsiderate clowns play with each other in a certain time window only.  Of course, it's only a dream....

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Do you think it's possible in architecture at some point in the future that the artform may consider what may be called
"The End of the sand bunker in golf and architecture"?

I was thinking about writing a piece on that evolution or possiblilty?

The fact is the sand bunker is that odd vestige, first deriving out of the naturally sandy Scottish linksland that has hung onto golf and architecture by the balls, when in so many sites around the world there is no real need for it or natural occurence of it.

What would be a whole lot more indigenous to golf architecture around the world would be the grass bunker, not a sand bunker.

The benefits with grass bunkering are countless and not the least of them is cost of construction and ongoing maintenance and cost.

However, if you want to see who it is who really hangs onto sand bunkering for dear life don't talk to the average golfer, talk to almost any golf course architect.

Too many of them are like spoilt imaginationless children who get hysterical if you suggest they shouldn't always have their sandboxes available.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In talking to a number of golfers recently, I've gleaned that many would prefer bunkers to be akin to waste areas where grounding your club is permitted.

I would hope that that trend doesn't take hold.

[TEPaul]

"I would hope that that trend doesn't take hold."

Patrick:

Why?

IF those areas were rough sand areas don't you think the basic rule of golf (Rule 13-2) that the player can not improve his lie would essentially take care of that situation?

Not to mention the cost saving in maintenance time and dollars.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I would hope that that trend doesn't take hold."

Patrick:

Why?

Because those areas will become less of a hazard, defeating the original intent and function of the bunker.[/color]

IF those areas were rough sand areas don't you think the basic rule of golf (Rule 13-2) that the player can not improve his lie would essentially take care of that situation?

No, I think it would lead to more ruling controversies[/color]

Not to mention the cost saving in maintenance time and dollars.

I'm not so sure that clubs wouldn't want those sandy waste areas maintained to the same standards as the bunkers.

I think it's a trend in the WRONG direction, a trend toward "fairness" and reducing the inherent challenge[/color]

[Troy Alderson]

Patrick and TEPaul,

I agree that sand bunkers are a natural hazard created naturally on the sandy shores of Scotland and Ireland.  Golf there is natural, golf away from sandy soil with sand bunkers is not natural.  That is why it is such a high expense.  Each site should develop its own natural hazards indigenous to the area.  

That is where the imagination of the GCA has to come in.  "What are the native hazards of golf on this site?"  But, the natural hazard of the site must be escapable unlike the water hazard.  

Why does the bunker hazard have sand when sand is not native to the area?  Aspen Lakes in Sisters Oregon uses ground up red ciders in the bunkers, a native "soil" in the area.  

Grass bunkers are a legitimate natural hazard if someone can come up with a standard on how to make them a true hazard with 1/2 stroke penalty when hit into.

Though waste area bunkers do appear to be a possible solution, Patrick is correct in saying the golfers would eventually ask for more maintenance on them.

Troy

[Craig Sweet]

Troy, I'm with you regarding bunkers...I find then to be silly appendages when they are not a natural feature...kind of like fake rock facades...

[Marc Haring]

Just as a bit of fun. Here’s the 3rd at Royal Ashdown Forest with and without. Please discuss.

[Sean_A]

Marc

I think the bunker looks alright, however, does the "added penalty" justify the added cost?  Does the bunker increase the strategy of the hole?  As an aside, I think a better idea is to keep the grass in front of the mounds and the mounds themselves short.  The ball either has enough guts to roll through or it will kick left to an uncertain lie.

Troy

If you make fairway hollows deep they are a severe penalty because deep ones often require short irons to get out of.  Go play Huntercombe, I tell ya, you don't want to be in most of those hollows!  Also, even shallow hollows can be very effective near greens when that shot plays downhill and/or downwind.  The player doesn't get nearly the spin as out of a bunker and it still takes great skill to play good shots.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick and TEPaul,

I agree that sand bunkers are a natural hazard created naturally on the sandy shores of Scotland and Ireland.  Golf there is natural, golf away from sandy soil with sand bunkers is not natural.  That is why it is such a high expense.  

Each site should develop its own natural hazards indigenous to the area.  

I would disagree with that.
What natural hazards indigenous to areas would you create ?
Adding a bunker creates instant strategy and challenge unlike any other hazard.[/color]

That is where the imagination of the GCA has to come in.  
You're forgetting several important components.
1  The owner/developer
2  Costs to construct indigenous hazards
3  Their practicallity to efficiency ratio[/color]

"What are the native hazards of golf on this site?"  

Could you provide some examples that could be systemically put into play ?[/color]

But, the natural hazard of the site must be escapable unlike the water hazard.

Again, some systemic examples would be helpful.[/color]  

Why does the bunker hazard have sand when sand is not native to the area?  

Closely mown grass may not be native to the area either.
Sand provides a unique hazard, one that can be systemically inserted into the design to create interest, strategy and challenge, and, it's relatively cheap when compared to more elaborate hazards.[/color]

Aspen Lakes in Sisters Oregon uses ground up red ciders in the bunkers, a native "soil" in the area.  

Unfortunately, in today's litigious environment, placing large/r particles in bunkers can create an inherently dangerous situation, one where both the architect and the club would be targets A and A1.  Shell rock is a dangerous byproduct found in many unlined bunkers in Florida.  I can attest to its tendency to fly into the golfer's eye when he's executing a shot from a bunker.[/color]

Grass bunkers are a legitimate natural hazard if someone can come up with a standard on how to make them a true hazard with 1/2 stroke penalty when hit into.

A problem with most grass bunkers is that they're practically invisible to the eye from the tee or DZ.  They tend to blend in with the rest of the grass, thus they don't create and send the appropriate tactical signals to the golfers eye.

They are nowhere near as efficient as sand bunkers in this regard.

An abundance of thick, High grass bunkers can also result in undue delay due to having to search for your ball.

Sand bunkers are far more efficient for the tasks they perform.[/color]

Though waste area bunkers do appear to be a possible solution, Patrick is correct in saying the golfers would eventually ask for more maintenance on them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Marc Hering,

I like both features, the dolomite like mounds and the bunker, although, I don't like the bunker cut into the mounds and think the area would be best served by the two features remaining independent of one another.

[Craig Sweet]

"I would disagree with that.
What natural hazards indigenous to areas would you create ?
Adding a bunker creates instant strategy and challenge unlike any other hazard."

So does a large open pit filled with cobra's and water moccasins...bunkers remind me of that Old School trend where they half buried old cars and buses on ski slopes for snowboards and skiers to jib and bonk off of...made about as much sense as "creating a sand hazzard" where they never existed...

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding some of your responses in post #55:

First check the definition of "bunker".

If a area was not "prepared" as a bunker then it would not be considered a bunker (hazard) whether it contained sand or grass or something else.

Those types of areas are considered to be "through the green" in the Rules of Golf.

A former bunker that has been obsoleted and just contains grass is not considered to be a bunker.

Those areas exist on golf courses and I don't see they've ever really created rules problems.

If a club decided to nevertheless ask for more maintenance in those areas with the thought to make them more consistent and certainly if they were sand, then I think the Rules of Golf both could and should simply deem them bunkers (hazards) and consequently not allow the grounding of the golf club.

I think you see problems where they may not exist.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Regarding some of your responses in post #55:

First check the definition of "bunker".

If a area was not "prepared" as a bunker then it would not be considered a bunker (hazard) whether it contained sand or grass or something else.

That's not true, the committee/club can always invoke a local rule with respect to how the areas will be played irrespective of their method and manner of "preparation"[/color]

Those types of areas are considered to be "through the green" in the Rules of Golf.

Earlier in this thread it was posited that bunkers be declared as waste areas and not bunkers, so everyone but you was aware of their transitioned status on the golf course.[/color]

A former bunker that has been obsoleted and just contains grass is not considered to be a bunker.[/b]

Noone was referencing grass bunkers in the discussion related to converting bunkers to waste areas.[/b]

Those areas exist on golf courses and I don't see they've ever really created rules problems.

I think you're confusing the two issues[/color]

If a club decided to nevertheless ask for more maintenance in those areas with the thought to make them more consistent and certainly if they were sand, then I think the Rules of Golf both could and should simply deem them bunkers (hazards) and consequently not allow the grounding of the golf club.

The club can declare what those features are, irrespective of the maintainance practices used in grooming them.[/color]

I think you see problems where they may not exist.

No, I see problems where they have the potential to exist, that's called vision or foresight. [/color]

[TEPaul]

"That's not true, the committee/club can always invoke a local rule with respect to how the areas will be played irrespective of their method and manner of "preparation""

Patrick:

A club (or club committee) can designate a sandy area as a "waste area" or "waste bunker" and that is indeed a "local" rule (although this kind of "local" rule does not exist in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf).

That area is consequently played under R&A/USGA Rules of Golf as "through the green". They cannot do that, however, if that area fits the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf definition of a "Bunker" (hazard). If they tried to declare an area that fits the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf definition of a "bunker" as a "Waste Area" or "Waste Bunker" the club (committee) would be using a "Local" Rule that waives a rule of golf and that is not permitted under the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf.

In the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf there is no such thing as a "Waste area" or Waste Bunker". Again, areas that are so designated by local rules by clubs are considered to be "Through the green" under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

As you know, in "through the green" areas a golfer can ground his club, the only prohibitition being he may not improve his lie (Rule 13-2).

[TEPaul]

"Earlier in this thread it was posited that bunkers be declared as waste areas and not bunkers, so everyone but you was aware of their transitioned status on the golf course."

Patrick:

Again, bunkers that fit the definition of a "bunker" (hazard) under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf cannot be declared as waste areas. Doing such a thing would waive a R&A/USGA Rule of Golf.

That status cannot be 'transitioned' so if everyone believed that to be the case but me then everyone was wrong----obviously including you, which of course is surprising since you are wrong on here approximately 97% of the time.  

[Tags:]

Tags: