Bunkers--two types of "playability"

[TEPaul]

Architect and golf writer A.W. Tillinghast said if they'd let him he'd run a herd of elephants through the sand of the bunkers of a golf course on tournament day. He apparently wasn't alone in that thought during his time in how to make golfers potentialy pay for going into bunkering.

But aren't most of us willing to concede in this day and age that no matter how much some of us might like to see the sand surfaces of bunkering treated like that these days it just isn't going to happen again? The fact is that the sand surfaces of bunkering on most all courses in this world are very carefully perpared probably daily to allow for the best possible lie in any sand bunker.

So what does that leave for bunkering to make a golfer pay for going in them? The only other way bunkering could make a golfer pay is in how its architecture is designed.

But some, such as Donald Ross and even Hugh Wilson seemed to suggest that when a player's ball went into one of their bunkers the golfer should always have some way of hitting at least an heroic shot to the green out of fairway bunkers and perhaps to any pin out of greenside bunkers.

I really can't say I agree with Ross and Wilson on that theory. My feeling is that the best bunkers, both fairway or greenside should perhaps offer any golfer that heroic possibility but only with complete randomness totally depending on where a golfer's ball may have ended up in any bunker and furthermore there should be no formulaic rhyme or reason why any particular lie in a bunker should architecturally offer that heroic recovery or not.

In my opinion, when any ball of any golfer enters a good bunker, whether fairway or green-side what is offered to him next should be completely in the realm of "iffiness" or "luck" in an architectural sense (not in a sand surface sense). Otherwise there never will be any real way that bunkering can accomplish the true purpose of what its supposed to be there for---to create truly meaningful strategies.

Should architects in the future do more to ratchet up the "architectural iffiness" and random recoverablity possibilites of their bunkering to make it more meaningful since the sand surfaces are just inevitably going to be well prepared in the future?

And if they really do try to do more of that will golfer's generally accept it?

[TEPaul]

redanman:

I think you're absolutely right that "variation" in the architectural playability throughout any course's total bunkering is a wonderful thing. In my opinion, formulaics of any kind is not healthy for golf and architecture and logically that would include bunkering throughout a course with completely consistent or formulaic "iffiness" or randomness.

TOC sounds like a wonderful example that way. What is a complete abomination though, in my opinion, is that TOC would think to create a "stroke saver" book with each bunker labeled 1, 2 and 3 to aid the golfer in figuring that out! Let the golfer sense such things on his own or learn it through experience and submit it to his own "mental inventory" and ability to concentrate.

Writing what any course offers and exactly how to play it in the way of a stroke saver book is perhaps the worst abomination of the "game mind of man" I can possibly think of. Any golf architect who writes a "stroke saver" book on how his golf couse should be played should be sent to bed with 1000 demerits and without supper for a month!

Let the golfer figure these things out all by himself---that's the ultimate challenge and joy of it all. If he does it that way he'll be so much happier and pleased with himself in the end and he will also become a far better golfer because of it!

As Bobby Jones said, he'll then be able to begin to read various golf courses and their unique architecture for himself and not just some book that explains all the mysteries of any golf course to him!

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  Stroke saver is a brand of course guide prepared for many courses in Scotland and sold to aid in course management or as souvenirs.  TOC did not prepare it nor did the R&A.  Over here, many of the CCFADs prepare similar guides and distribute them as part of the "experience."  The Strokesaver series is well done for the most part.

[TEPaul]

SL:

I have no doubt at all the Stroke Saver booklet is hugely popular and successful and I do know where all it's offered---I've seen them in Europe and the USA alike.

It's still the biggest abomination to the true enjoyment of the mysteries of golf and architecture imaginable, in my opinion!

Perhaps, I should email the "Stroke Saver" company and tell them they should print up little booklets on all movies produced and hand them out to all movie goers so they could figure out what every movie is about too. They could also put them inside any dust jacket of any book published to pony the reader into truly understanding it. Don't worry, I'll be the first to invest in the stock of the "Stroke Saver" company if they take my suggestion.

It's still the biggest abomination imaginable, in my opinion!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I wish that architect's would "rachet up the iffiness" of their bunkering but I don't think it would be easily accepted by the playing public. I feel that many, if not most, players prefer the Ross/Wilson approach, as you have put forth. I also feel this attitude is most prevalent due to the types of courses that predominate our landscape, i.e., ones where sand is not a naturally occurring obstacle. It's that Behr thing.    

Unlike you, I don't find a stroke-saver to be an abomination (I personally don't use them as I like to figure it out for myself and I don't mind the element of surprise). It could add to the enjoyment of the golf "tourist" who might only have the chance to play a particular course once or twice. This "tourist" might want to know that his/her draw could land in a nearly inextricable predicament, thereby necessitating a change to their plan of attack. The stroke-saver could actually add to their appreciation of what the architect has wrought as they may never have the chance to explore the various obstacles or avenues presented to them.  

[George Pazin]

Re: Tillinghast's elephants -

I have't yet purchased the Tufts book with the logic behind the rules, but has raking bunkers always been an accepted practice. You're not allowed to alter the surface of the ground within a water hazard, are you (honest question, not smart ass remark - I'm rules challenged)? What's is the logic behind raking bunkers?

[BCrosby]

Almost all Golden Age courses were designed and built before the advent of the sand wedge. Perceptions of how one played out of bunkers changed dramatically after Sarazan's invention.

My guess is that Tillie, Wilson, Ross, the whole lot of them,  believed bunkers to be much harder to recover from than anyone does today. Bunker shots were perceived as a very risky business. Even for the best players. We tend to forget that.

To get to Tom's larger question, yes, bunkers back then (whether or not trampled by elephants) were truly terrifying and, therefore, effective shapers of strategy.

For modern architects the conclusion would seem to be that (a) bunkers in the Golden Age played much, much more difficultly than they do now, and (b) modern bunkers, if you want them to have the same strategic teeth, must be rethought for them to have the same fear factor today. The sand wedge and modern bunker maintenance practices changed the equation. A bunker in 2004 doesn't frighten anyone the way that same bunker would have in 1924.

Bob

P.S. There is lots of talk about how titanium heads and graphite shafts have revolutionized the game. But the advent of the sand wedge was no less revolutionary. It had a permanent and profound impact on gca that is rarely noted.

[Brian_Gracely]

TEPaul,

Are you lumping together the ability to play a heroic shot out of the bunker with the conditioning of the bunker (ie. footprints at Pine Valley).  You disagreed with Ross' concept of playing a heroic shot, but you seem to imply it was because it wasn't random enough.  What randomness are you talking about..??  Conditioning of sand or shape/slope/depth of bunkers, angle of bunkers to the green.....what?

The reason I ask is you have a tendency to often assess other architects' work in comparison to Crump's work at Pine Valley, or the conditions at Pine Valley.  And so I would ask...If GMGC (or Seminole) conditioned their bunkers in a similar manner to PVGC (ie. no rakes), would you still believe the playability was dramatically different and less testing?  Because if we don't take into consideration things like the types of soil, slope of the land, and drainage (ie. the artistic canvas they are given to work) then you really can't make comparisons between various styles.

[Doug_Feeney]

The point we all tend to miss is that for a majority of golfers bunkers are still very difficult!  The "average" player may get up and down from a bunker 1 in 20 times.  Tour players average somewhere around 50% (70% being the highest this year).  Is that 1/2 shot penalty to tour players and much worse for most golfers not enough.

Leaving bunkers unmaintained (or particularly severe) makes them nearly unplayable for a lot of golfers - unlike a water hazard, the only option to get out of a bunker is with your club or with a stroke and distance penalty.

Golf takes long enough without me waiting in the fairway for  a guy in the group ahead to return to the 150 yard marker.

[Andy Hughes]

Let the golfer figure these things out all by himself---that's the ultimate challenge and joy of it all. If he does it that way he'll be so much happier and pleased with himself in the end and he will also become a far better golfer because of it!

Tom, point I suspect well-taken, but I think you are being overharsh on the Stroke Saver guides, especially for a course like the Old Course.  It would take many, many playings of such a course to begin to appreciate the differences between bunkers being 1s or 2s or 3s. While there is something to be said for a slow, deliberate learning curve, how many people do not have that option?  As well, I am sure many would see no problem with a good caddy murmuring in your ear on the fifth tee that perhaps a drive a little over-leaked right might find a true '1' bunker.
Is there really that much difference?

[TEPaul]

"Honestly, Tom, the Stroke SaverŪ is useful for a first-time player, imparting a certain knowledge that a useful caddie might.  It is the equivalent of some "local knowledge".

redanman:

Not only is the Stroke Saver an abomination to making your own experiences and your own local knowledge it's a double abomination for directly threatening the health and well being of that honorable (or dishonorable--however you may choose to view it) and traditional profession of caddying in the game of golf!

Any man who endorses the Stroke Saver booklet concept and also has the gall to call himself a "purist" in golf and architecture should be given 10,000 demerits and sent to bed without supper for six months to one year!!!

I mean I've heard of hypocrisy---but this takes the cake! If any purist wants a booklet telling him how to play a golf course he should buy a little notebook, go out on any course and make his own as my Dad did hundreds of times. I only wish I'd saved them all when he died!

[Mark Brown]

I think fairway bunkers give the average golfer plenty of trouble even when they are raked, and I like to have the opportunity to get near or on the green if I hit a very good shot. I don't like to see fairway bunkers deeper than 3 or 4 feet.

Greenside bunkers: I think their is great enjoyment in hitting good bunker shots out of greenside bunkers, and they still trouble the average golfer. I do, however like to see a penal bunker here and there around the greens -- such as No.10 at Pine Valley. It adds a bit of trepidation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Wouldn't your theory be dependent on the acreage of bunkers on the golf course, the likelyhood of encountering them, and the amount of daily play the golf course receives ?

I can see it at Friar's Head, but not at Pine Valley.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As ususal, I have very little to no idea what your questions are asking!  

[Doug Siebert]

Tom,

I agree with everything you say about bunkers, I think its silly that some great architects confined themselves unnecessarily with their mistaken beliefs that the heroic option to every green and every pin should be available from every bunker.  I think we don't see nearly enough of the kind of bunkers you should truly fear because they will cost you a stroke.  Really the only bunkers I particularly worry about in the US in relation to "can't go there or I'm screwed" are those in the 50-100 yard range just because its damn hard (at least for me) to hit a half shot from a bunker without having a 1/3 chance of either hitting it a bit fat and getting it only halfway there or catching it thin and hitting a rocket over the green on the fly.

But your strokesaver comments are really misguided.  Sure, in an ideal world we'll play TOC several times a year and between experience and a great caddie we'll learn that the Road Bunker ought to be avoided from personal experience without being contaminated by having ever seen it on TV or even heard of it mentioned in any manner before setting foot on the course.  In the real world its a pleasure we can't often have, so figuring out that one bunker is not too bad while another is death will never happen in our lifetimes for all bunkers so having some aid isn't a bad thing.  Its no different than having a good caddie who will tell you where you really can't afford to be.  Guys like me who are given to occasional fits of wildness (well, this season more like very occasional fits of straightness in between long dark periods of wildness) will tell a caddie on the first tee, "just tell me where I can't afford to be, and where I can afford to miss if I don't hit the fairway or green".  I'd hope he'll tell me what bunkers are a "3" and which are a "1".  I'll attack a pin behind a "1", but won't if its a "3", unless its the Road Bunker (cuz if I keep attacking that pin eventually I'll have the fun of getting to play out of the Road Bunker, maybe third time's a charm)

[TEPaul]

Doug:

If a Stroke Saver booklet that labels bunkers and such as 1,2 and 3 as to the need to avoid them makes you happy and adds to your enjoyment then use them by all means. They just don't do that for me. I'd rather try to read things for myself on the golf course and if I screwed up through lack of observation or awareness or execution then so be it---it would most likely inspire me to come back again---even if I never did or could.

This was so much the case with that little super fast and firm and generally canting course in Mallow Ireland. I played it alone every morning at daybreak for one week. I couldn't wait to get back out again to try something else that might work a bit better than the day before---I even thought about it everyday before going out. With a Stroke Saver booklet much of the enjoyment of trying to figure out the mysteries of the golf course would have been lacking---I would've probably known it all too quickly and something would have been lost or lacking for me each preceeding day of that wonderful week on that funny little golf course.

But if Stroke Saver booklets do it for you, then so be it. They just don't for me.

[TEPaul]

"Every golfer worthy of the name should have some acquaintance with the principles of golf course design, not only for the betterment of the game, but for his own selfish enjoyment. Let him know a good hole from a bad one and the reasons for a bunker here and another there, and he will be a long way towards pulling his score down to respectable limits. When he has taught himself to study a hole from the point of view of the man who laid it out, he will be much more likely to play it correctly."
R.T. (Bobby) Jones

I'd just much rather have the opportunities to get to know those kinds of things out on the golf course and in play rather than from some little booklet before playing a shot.

[TEPaul]

This kind of subject reminds me of something that happened with Ran Morrissett a month or so ago. Ran and Bill Greenwood were playing Merion West as me and Matt Shaeffer walked around with them. Ran was using his hickories! On the steeply uphill little 8th hole I happened by a sprinkler head with a yardage on it next to Ran's ball and I told him how far he was. Ran said; "Don't tell me things like that, I want to just try to feel those things for myself". That's what I'm talking about here.

[JohnV]

Tom,

Ron Reed, the Western Regional Director of the USGA, likes to have a fine where you add $1 to the overall bet each time you look at a yardage marker on the course.

As for Stroke Savers or other yardage books, I frequently buy them, but mainly to keep as a reminder of the course.  While I can usually remember all the holes, the books do help a few years later.  I don't tend to use them too much on the course.  But, I also don't have a problem with them because many of us can't afford caddies at all the courses we might be playing on a trip to Scotland or Ireland and there really is no other way to tell which bunkers should most be avoided.

As for your father's course maps, why do you want them?  Shouldn't you make your own.

Don't worry, as carts with GPS arrive in Scotland, they need for Stroke Saver booklets will go down substantially.

[TEPaul]

"But, I also don't have a problem with them because many of us can't afford caddies at all the courses we might be playing on a trip to Scotland or Ireland and there really is no other way to tell which bunkers should most be avoided."

JohnV:

Forget about the caddie then and just hit your ball in some of those bunkers and after a while you should find out just fine
which to avoid and which not to!  

"As for your father's course maps, why do you want them?  Shouldn't you make your own."

I doubt I would've used them but I wish I'd saved them---he obviously put a lot of time and effort into all those little booklets. As for me, I don't use Stroke Saver booklets, I don't use yardage markers of any kind---all that stuff is an abomination and not that reliable anyway and it's too time consuming. I'm a real purist too pal---I just take out my latest range finder, scope in on the target, pust the button, and BOOM it tells me how far the target is to the nearest inch!

I'm a real purist, my friend! No muss, no fuss, just focus in and I have it!

[Doug Siebert]

Tom,

I certainly respect your right to play without the strokesavers.  But your example isn't what I'm talking about -- playing the same course every morning for a week you would obviously learn where the bunkers are.  If you played it once and then might not return for 10 years, you may not remember a particularly bunker you found, or even if you do because you hit your tee shot on the opposite side of the fairway or the wind was blowing in a different direction that bunker didn't even come into play.

Believe me, I've done stuff like you describe Ran doing as well (the pointedly ignoring sprinkler heads or other aids to try to play a course purely by feel thing, not the playing with hickories thing)  I did that at Killeen and Mahoney's Point where I was in Ireland this past summer, as a matter of fact, but did the strokesaver and/or caddie thing at the rest.  I guess it all depends on what I'm trying to "get" out of a given round.

[TEPaul]

Stroke Savers aside, should bunkering be more meaningful architecturally as to playability since it appears certain the actual sand surfaces of most all the world's bunkering has gotten to that point where almost every golfer expects a decent lie within any bunker? In other words, are bunkers as meaningful as they should be in a strategic sense? If not, it appears making them more architecturally difficult may be the only way to go in the future. Or are architects and golfers generally too worried about only penalizing the poorer players?

Don't forget, it's long been said that bunkering is any architects best tool to use to create strategy in golf.

I'll give you a perfect example to me. Gulf Stream G.C. in Delray Florida is a little old Ross course I've played hundreds and hundreds of times in my life. Admittedly over the years some of Ross's original bunkers may have been removed but not that many were. About 5 years ago Brian Silva came in and restored Ross's bunkering that was taken out and added some of his own on about 6 holes. Those particular holes now play 500% more interesting and challenging from tee to green!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
You used this quote:

"When he has taught himself to study a hole from the point of view of the man who laid it out, he will be much more likely to play it correctly."
R.T. (Bobby) Jones

Bobby Jones offers up the perfect reason for using stroke-savers.

If the relief options for bunkers were the same as for other hazards or if bunkers were not treated as hazards then I think there would be less resistance to "Making them more architecturally difficult".

[Doug_Feeney]

Jim,

I think the key part of the Jones quote is "taught himself", not been given someone else's opinion.

Just a thought.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Doug,
Just poking a litlle fun at TE. I knew I should have put a smiley or two in there.