Have bunkers lost some of their architectural value ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It seems that the better players relish getting into bunkers on certain occassions.

Has the conditioning of bunkers, with firm, packed sand, caused these features to be less of a hazard with less architectural and strategic meaning ?

[Ted Kramer]

No question about it.
Get rid of the rakes.

-Ted

[Steve Curry]

Pat,

This query best exemplifies some thoughts I've had on the many questions of cost and conditioning.  In too many cases the drive for change is to make the surfaces easier for the better golfer.

Steve

[TEPaul]

"It seems that the better players relish getting into bunkers on certain occassions.
Has the conditioning of bunkers, with firm, packed sand, caused these features to be less of a hazard with less architectural and strategic meaning?"

Pat:

I look at something like bunkering in two very distinct ways;

1. The playability of the sand surfaces themselves (lie of the ball in sand).
2. The architectural value of the dimensions of the bunkers themselves, particularly the veritcal dimensions of their outgoing sides and how the contours of the sand flow up into those outgoing sides (in the context of where the ball comes to rest or not on the sand surface contours in relation to that vertical dimension).

Both obviously have a lot to do with playability and strategy and the effectiveness of what bunkering can do that way. On #1 we're really talking about "lie" but on #2 we're really talking about the necessity of various trajectories of the ball.

Have bunkers lost some of their "architectural" effectiveness? Only to the extent the vertical dimension has become less or less severe.

Has bunkering lost some of it's effectiveness due to the more perfect conditioning and maintenance of sand surfaces today compared to yesteryear? Definitely, there's no question at all but this I think is in the realm of maintenance and conditoning not "architecture". This (improved sand surface maintenance and conditioning) is the biggest change in minimizing the strategic effectiveness of bunkering in the modern age, in my opinion. Things like L wedges and other ultra lofted clubs have minimized bunkerings strategic effectiveness too compared to the old days!  

[JESII]

If we are to disregard the best players in the world (who clearly prefer a greenside bunked to many of the other options around a green) I would say that improved conditioning and maintanence have reduced the penalty a bit for most players.

Imagine if rakes were no longer allowed. How would that effect the tour players approach to some of those tucked pins?

[Brent Hutto]

If the sand is fluffy and the bunkers are not flat so that the ball ends up on upslopes, downslopes and sideslopes a greenside bunker is a strategic hazard even today. Space those fluffy-sand bunkers back 15-30 yards from the green and they are quite a hazard although admittedly not many good ballstrikers are going to be missing greens by 25 yards.

About the time I joined my home course they rebuilt all the bunkers and replaced the old hard-packed sand with the deep stuff of nightmares. I never hear even the low-handicappers yelling "Get in the bunker!" no matter how high the rough.

[TEPaul]

"Imagine if rakes were no longer allowed. How would that effect the tour players approach to some of those tucked pins?"

It would very definitely effect their aggresiveness in playing to tucked pins. Although some fans think those tour players don't think well, they are wholly wrong about that, in my opinion. Why wouldn't they think well---it's their livelihood?! They know a lot better than we do the economic value of a dropped shot!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

While vertical distances are an important element, you're completely overlooking the maintainance element.
Have you forgotten the theory that some idiot came up with, called, "the maintainance meld" ?

If one is in a fairway bunker where the sand is firm and packed, the lie is probably just a shade under that of a fairway lie.
And thus the shot at hand offers little or no impediment to proper or adequate execution.  In other words there has been little or no impact to the playability, vis a vis, the architectural feature, the bunker.  The bunker has lost its strategic significance, or at least, had it greatly diminished.

The same is true of greenside bunkers.

How many times, when watching a tour event, do you hear a player yell, "get in the bunker" ?  Why ?  Because he can execute a better recovery from a firm, packed bunker then he can from the surrounding area.

The feature has lost its function, it's become a vistigial architectural feature.

And all, through the loss of your beloved maintainance meld.

This should appeal to you:

Less maintainance increases the architectural value of the bunker, it returns its function to what it was intended to be.
A HAZARD.  A feature to be strategically reckoned with in the course of play.

Less maintainance will return the function of bunkers to their HAZARDOUS nature and result in the loss of a 1/2 shot to a full shot.

Less maintainance will reduce COSTS.
Aren't most clubs concerned with costs ?

Ken Bakst got it right, from the get go.
No rakes, little maintainance.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
While vertical distances are an important element, you're completely overlooking the maintainance element.
Have you forgotten the theory that some idiot came up with, called, "the maintainance meld"?"

Patrick:

How can you say such a thing? What do you mean I'm overlooking the maintenance (and conditioning) element? Go back and reread my post #3. Point #2 is all about the maintenance element and only about the maintenance element!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Shivas
Perfect lie is one thing.  But were you better off in the bunker with a perfect lie or better off in the rough, fairway or on the fringe?  That would better answer the architectural test.
If the answer is you would have been better off not being in the bunker, then the bunkers are serving their architectural purpose.  They are more than lighthouse bunkers. Right?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Does anyone know where and when the raking of bunkers came into being? Do we know what the original rationale was?

[Jimmy Muratt]

I think the conditioning of the bunkers has defnitely had an impact on the intended architectural designs of many courses.  For example, take a greenside bunker with a high lip and the green slopes away from you to the pin.  With the tight perfect lie, one can afford to nip the ball perfectly and still stop the ball close to the hole.  If there was more sand in the bunkers, fluffy lies are very difficult to catch cleanly and stop.  This would make hitting into the bunker a true hazard, as it should be.  That same shot would be MUCH more difficult.

The same is true for fairway bunkers.  Most now are packed so tightly you hardly create an indention in the sand when you walk.  A perfect, tight lie in a fairway bunker allows you to still play very aggressively without much risk.  Increase the sand in the bunker and hitting into the bunker off the tee becomes a penalty.

I say increase the amount of sand in the bunkers, create some fluffy and less than perfect lies.

[James Edwards]

Im with Patrick on this and have posted many times on this subject...  After much thought on the topic, I believe we should try not raking bunkers in professional tournaments just on the short par 4's and 5's so its stops (sorry to pick on Phil Mickelson here) Phil from saying - ""get in the front bunker, please get in there"" to basically stop the ball from flying onto the shallow green from front to back and scooting through into he bushes and rubbish at the back...  Phil was well within his rights to attempt this, but my problem is the architectural merit of the hole was lost as he should not have the chance to knock a 3 wood onto the green from the rough to a short par 5 and shallow green... if he would have hit thefairway he would have gained another 30 yards and gone in with a long iron with some spin.  

He knew he couldnt hold the green and played for the well groomed bunker!  Make THIS bunker unraked and he wouldnt go for it would he..?  Brings classic strategy back into the equation.

[Lou_Duran]

In user-friendly designs, primarily at resorts and high-end daily fee courses, I think that bunkers have been dumbed-down.  In talking to some architects, speed of play and construction and maintenance cost issues are usually cited as why that is.

Personally, I like bunkers closer to the greens to be deeper and more difficult, and those requiring a long iron or fairway wood to get home to be shallower and without a high lip on the green side.  

#2 at OSU's Scarlet was always difficult for me because the right side drive landing area was so well protected, that it encouraged flirting with the bunker on the left (20 - 25 steps between the bunker on the left and the trees on the right).  If you hit in the bunker, there seem to be a 50/50 chance that the next shot was just a lay-up with a short iron.  Some of my most memorable shots on that hole are those where I was able to hit a 5 wood and challenge the green.

Another course I played a few times has a short DLR par 4 around a large irrigation lake (on the inside), and guarded on the left by a large fairway bunker.  The hole typically plays with a helping wind, and the green opens up more from the left side of the fairway.  The aggresive shot is to go directly at the green, flirting with the lake.  The safe shot is to the left, and because the fairway bunker is so shallow and close to the green (9 iron to a wedge), there is no real penalty to hitting there.  In effect, it takes out the aggresive shot down the right out of play.  If the bunker was much deeper, or maybe a series of pot bunkers, the other shot may make more sense.      

[Jimmy Muratt]

Not raking the bunkers is a definite option but just creates so many variables.  Do you smooth the sand over at all?  If so, how much?  I think just adding more sand to the bunkers would have the same effect with poor lies, yet would avoid the inconsistency of some players smoothing the sand over more than others or landing in a huge foot print.  

[RT]

The USGA Guidelines for Bunker sands and their tests include particle size analysis, pentration potentials, particle spherocity and sand particle shape to test a bunker sand namely against the fried egg lies and the varying sands potentials to envelope the ball.

Perhaps this is one factor to the overall situation.

[TEPaul]

"Does anyone know where and when the raking of bunkers came into being? Do we know what the original rationale was?"

Adam:

Of course we know. It was the slow alteration of philosophy in golf that luck should be eliminated as much as possible to overcome what was considered to be unfair. This was a gradual and evolutionary process---no one person suddenly decided that now and forevermore all bunkers on all courses should be raked---and so it was after that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RT,

Bunker conditions at the USGA run US OPEN are generally more difficult then the bunker conditions at PGA tour events.

The definitive study/white paper on bunkers and bunker conditioning has been prepared by Robert Randquist, the former superintendent at Southern Hills and current superintendent at Boca Rio.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Lou you said: "...and those requiring a long iron or fairway wood to get home to be shallower and without a high lip on the green side."  I am definately moving in a direction completely opposite of your dictate.  I see no reason to give you a shot at the green if you hit it into the fairway bunker.  Bad rule.  Maybe some sort of earthen feature presenting a difficult lie and stance would be an element better suited for you if you want to advance the ball to the green from off the fairway, but a fairway bunker gets respect if you lose that opportunity for a full recovery.  I am nowhere near where I want to be in my application of these hazards to the strategic design, but if my only solution is to remove the rakes then there is probably little hope of any creative alterntives to Pat's contention that bunkers have lost their value as a hazard.  I like the idea of removing rakes although I can see you digging your heels in a little deeper knowing I am in the foursome behind you, but it seems like a pretty sophomoric solution.  I like the idea of letting you ground your club in the bunkers, that way as an architect I don't have to contend with rules committees that need to know the limits of the bunker, from a design standpoint the bunker edge can bleed away w/o a hard edge.

[Brent Hutto]

My club has started "converting" some fairway bunkers and even greenside bunkers into "waste areas", the conversion being to plant some little bushy grass clumps in them, remove the rakes and letting them firm up by not have the grounds crew fluff them up every morning.

I always use a club and/or my foot to smooth over my footprints anyway, that seems simple courtesy. I've yet to end up in or under one of those clumps but that would be a real pisser I suppose. Otherwise, I think it looks cool and adds interest to the bunkers.

[Ken Fry]

So let me just paraphrase a few things to see if I'm hearing most on this thread correctly:

1.  you want to add more sand to all bunkers to creat fluffier lies

2.  you want to eliminate rakes

3.  you want to make getting out of a bunker so hard to bring back the "architectural merit of it"

Are all you guys serious?!?!?

1.  adding more sand to bunkers is going to make maintenance harder, not easier.  Between blow-outs, wash-outs and normal use, sand will need to be replaced and bunkers rebuilt annually.

2.  No rakes?!?  OK, so the first guy in a tournament goes out and hits in every bunker.  Gets a perfect lie.  The last guy in  the tournament hits in one bunker.  Some guy dug his feet so far down to "create a stance" that the ball is now 4" below the surface.  This is what the game should be about?  He hit it 10 feet short of the putting surface so now he should be punished with a lie he can't even hit out of??  Interesting rationale.

3.  I bet there aren't 5 people out of the 1400 on this site with the golfing ability of the bottom 200 players on the Nationwide Tour.  Get over the fact that the guys playing golf at the highest level are GOOD.  Not because of technology, not because of perfect conditioning but because they COULD hit a high cutting #3 wood from the rough to a shallow green.

Many comlplain all American golfers expect perfect lies and predictable bounces.  BS.  If I'm standing in the middle of the fairway and hit an errant shot that may go in the bunker or greenside rough, I'm yelling get into the bunker.  Why?  Because a sand shot is somewhat predictable compared to hacking a golf ball out of 4" rough.

The entire reasoning behind all these comments is that golf has gotten too easy for the best players.  So let's raise the rough to 12".  Let's narrow the fairways to 20 yards.  Let's put 10" of loose sand in every bunker so any ball will bury.

If you're going to have an argument about the strategic merits of bunkering, have one.  Tournament courses remain the best in the world because their bunkering remains an intregal part of the stategic merit of the course.  The posh resorts or heavly used public tracks have probably lost their  strategy in favor of speed of play.

Given today's bunkering, how many of you guys get up and down more than 5 out of 10 times??  So now you want to make it harder because 1% of the world golfing population has become proficient in the process?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

Doesn't grounding your club allow you to "create" an improved lie ?

In my limited experience, I've noticed a trend with memberships wanting a bunker to be less of a hazard.

I've seen it manifested in several ways.

1.   front lips/earthen works are lowered
2.   Sand if added such that the sand rises to the front of the
     front lip, creating a ski jump effect, and allowing for easier
      extrication.
3    Bunkers are tamped, or packed down creating a firmer
      playing surface.
4    Bunkers are groomed daily
5    Buffers of rough are created around them to stop a ball
      headed in their direction
6    feeding features are eliminated.
7    The bunker is made shallower
8    the bunker is eliminated

Yet, most love to go and play Pine Valley, NGLA and GCGC.

Ken Fry,

Who wants to add more sand ?

Sand depth is a function of many components and cannot be viewed in an isolated context.

Friar's Head and Pine Valley have/had no rakes and they seemed to have faired quite well.

In a tournament, the early starters one day are the late starters the next.  it all evens out, and, if you don't want bunkers to BE A HAZARD fill them in.

With regard to your ridiculous notion that only tour players have the ability to extracate themselves admirably from bunkers, I recount the story of a 15 handicap, on the 16th hole at GCGC, in a bunker, who defied the chinese proverb,
"wood in bunker, mean wood in head", hit a 180 yard shot three feet from the pin.

Some of these new trouble clubs have made getting out of bunkers far, far easier for every range of golfer.

With L-Wedges, other equipment and special grooming, bunkers have lost their strategic and playable value.  If you don't see that, you must tee off after midnight.

[Art_Schaupeter]

In general I would say yes, I think bunkers have lost some of their architectural value.  

I also like what Kelly said regarding fairway bunkers.  I don't think you should automatically have the opportunity to advance the ball to the green if you land in a fairway bunker.  From a design standpoint I am trying to get more individual style to each bunker, allowing setting and the strategic options of each hole or shot dictate the bunker style.  I also like the idea of setting up the fairway bunker in such a manner that where in the bunker you end up could impact the shot options you are left with.

Do bunkers need to be uniform in style on a given golf course, or can the bunker style be variable, dependent upon the individual setting of a specific hole and the strategic options the architect is trying to create?

The mentality that every bunker should be in perfect condition is a bit frustrating from a design standpoint.  If bunkers were allowed to be rougher, and truly more penal, it would help minimize maintenance in two direct ways:  first, less active maintenance day to day, and second, I think well designed courses would require less bunkering in general.  This would also help to emphasize the various options a golf hole might provide.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Art,

As long as the USGA permits you to test the condition of the bunker when taking your stance, I see no need for standardization of bunker conditions.

I think this is a tour driven and membership driven concept.

And, it puts tremendous, unwarranted pressure on superintendents.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have read this thread with great interest as one who still finds the sandgame challenging.
I believe the single biggest contibutor is the way that bunkers are designed.
I think that at courses like Merion and Pine Valley the bunkers remain as much a challenge as they ever have...unless you consider the fact that at PV rakes used to be missing.....
Well constructed bunkers will always be a challenge, just ask Thomas Bjorn..losing The Open from what is actually not that deep a bunker as bunkers at St Georges go.
Too many architects , create these awful looking large white masses that have no depth..just greenside pits that require very little true bunker expertise.
An intersting quote from Scott mCarron in the latest golf digest..when asked about his prowess out of the sand, he remarked the key is to get the ball on the green and running, limit the spin as much as possible...well hello!!!!!
There is the problem, when you are playing courses when you can do that, then yes the sand game is a lot easier..let me see Scott try that at The Open this year...I promise you that technique wont cut the mustard.

Sure lofted wedes with ground bounce all help, as does the quality of the sand, but to me it is the lack of imagnation in bunker construction that makes the difference.

The bunker game at all the links courses I know is still truly a challenge.