Have bunkers lost some of their architectural value ?

[TEPaul]

"...unless you consider the fact that at PV rakes used to be missing....."

Michael:

They still are. I doubt you'll ever see a rake for golfers at PVGC but that does not mean that the maintenance crew isn't in them sand-proing them far more than they used to just a few years ago.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

My mistake, I just remember not being in any foot prints, but then again I also dont remember my caddie ever raking either..
Imust remember to stay out of them again!!

[John Gosselin]

IMHO it is the intensity in the way today's roughs are maintained that has lead to the bunkers being less feared or less feared than being in the rough. It wasn’t to long ago that roughs weren’t irrigated, fertilized on a regular basis, sprayed with herbicide and fungicides. Also, they were typically mowed with a set of gang mowers at 1.5 to 2''. Today it seems the rough is maintained more like a lush home lawn with heights 3 to 4" and now rotary type mowers are the norm because the they stand the grass up better.

If the rough were not so penal would the average player still coach his ball into the hazard?

Granted the desire for a bunker to be firm and consistent has gotten out of hand, but not raking will lead to all out fistfights among foursomes. I guess you could put the NHK’s out of work refs to work in a lot of the men's grills across the country.

[Art_Schaupeter]

Michael,

Good example regarding Bjorn.  In that situation, I thought the design of the bunker was only part of the dilemma for him.  With the hole cut close to the top of the slope that ran back into the bunker, he had a very small area to leave his shot and still have a relatively easy putt.  Long out of the bunker would have left a testy downhill putt, and we saw what happened if he was short.  Hopefully I am remembering the situation correctly.

I agree with what you wrote.  In addition, I believe that good bunker design is contingent upon good overall design.  In the example of greenside bunkers, the design and style of the bunker itself is important, but the position of the bunker relative to angles of approach, and maybe more importantly, the orientation of the contours of the green surface relative to the bunker will all serve to accentuate good bunkers, or expose bunkers lacking architectural value.


Pat,

Do you think that club members take this route because of the PGA Tour?  Additionally, is it relative to their personal game?  I have dealt with a lot of clubs, and it can be tough to get the decision makers to take their own game out of the equation when considering improvements.  This leads me to the other comment I made earlier regarding the quantity of bunkers.  Members at clubs with a lot of bunkers might be inclined to try and soften the bunkers impact due to the quantity of bunkers.  If some bunkers were removed, I think it becomes an easier sell to try and bring back more integrity to the bunkers that are left.

[Lou_Duran]

KBM,

I think that the recovery is one of the most exciting and intrinsically rewarding shots in golf.  MacKenzie lauds the design which allows a player who just hit an indifferent shot to recover with an extraordinary stroke.

I am not suggesting that every bunker out 200yds. from the grees be completely shallow and flat.  I do recommend varying the level of difficulty of the hazard in proportion to the length of the subsequent shot, the closeness of the hazard to the line of play, the complexity of the green and surrounds,  and the availability of alternative routes from the tee over or around that hazard.

Scarlet #2 is very tight in the driving area, offers no alternative routes, and laying up short of the left bunker leaves an extremely long second.  The more difficult you make the bunker, the fewer choices most players have, and the bigger advantage you give to the Matt Wards of the world who can hit it over and go at the green with a short iron out of the rough.

BTW, I much prefer MacKenzie to Pete Dye.  I am a big believer in redemptive design.  Unless I miss it by a bunch, I generally like to have a chance to make good, even though most of the time I just make things worse.  Put me in your deep-one dimensional bunker, and I guess that I'll just wedge it back in play.  Perhaps my scores would be better, but I doubt that I would enjoy it as much.  

[John Gosselin]

I think that at courses like Merion and Pine Valley the bunkers remain as much a challenge as they ever have"

I would go a step further and say most bunkers become more challenging as the age. As sand build up on the lips they become deeper and have a lot more character than when they are first built. It was great to see Merion go through significant effort when rebuilding the bunkers to recreate how they had evolved.

Also, every time one of the self-proclaimed Ross experts restores bunkers on a course to the so-called Ross bunker I cringe. Pinehurst #2 bunkers in Philly just doesn’t do it for me. They are often much easier to play out of than before the renovations.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Art,
You are of course correct the pin placement on 16 was as much to do with the difficultyas the bunker itself.
But imagine that same pin proximity to a regular bunker on the pga tour..alot different.
I agree overall green design has to be incorporated with the bunkering, and perhaps that is equally a problem on many of the modern style golf courses.
I was watching the telecast yesterday, and could not help but think, how boring the golf courses looked.
Beautiful conditoning, but with the exception of those 'hill' holes on the Palmer course, it all looked so much the same.
No imagination at all in any of the bunkering/greens.

[James Bennett]

There are rakes, and then there are rakes!  Didn't Oakmont (or was it Baltusrol) have special, custom designed rakes that left a smooth but less even surface.  I recall Nicklaus commenting on this in the 70's.  At my club, we have just changed over rake types to a light headed, wide but shallow toothed rake that enables major depressions to be repaired, but not to the standard expected of a sand green.  We repair the bunkers once a week with a sand pro, and rip the bases when the depth starts to get a bit shallow, but only then.

Golfers should enjoy the challenge of a bunker, rewarded for a good shot and suffering the stroke penalty for two bad shots in a row.

I have not heard a member at my club complain about a bad lie in a water hazard yet, but they certainly do about bunkers!   One tip if you are discussing bunker conditions with fellow golfers - don't suggest their technique is the problem, and that they should take a lesson.  It might be accurate, but it won't be well received.

A club in Adelaide recently changed their policy on the location of rakes.  They decided to place them outside of the bunker (I think we used to do that 35 years ago).  Well, the outcome seemed to be that golfers would enter the bunker, play their shot, and then take a direct line to the rake location, even if that was straight up a bunker face!  The damage inflicted on the bunkers by members  was IMHO excessive.  

Get the right rakes, leave them in the bunker and keep the surfaces challenging. This is a lot cheaper than rebuilding bunkers, deepening depths.  

An old joke goes thus - ' I'm going to give up golf, I just can't get out of the bunkers'.  Have you tried the new lob wedges?  'Yes, I use one of them.  They are really good at getting the ball out and close to the pin.  It's then that I have trouble, getting myself out of the bunker!!'

[SPDB]

Pat - I agree with your premise, but I disagree with your reasoning. I still believe that for all but a very few of the players, a bunker regardless of maintenance is no picnic and most would prefer to be a few feet outside (whether fairway or not).

Now bunker placement is another matter, particularly cross or centerline bunkering. I still believe that RTJ had a lot to do with bunker migration from a central hazard, to a toothless adornment of the rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

IMHO it is the intensity in the way today's roughs are maintained that has lead to the bunkers being less feared or less feared than being in the rough. It wasn’t to long ago that roughs weren’t irrigated, fertilized on a regular basis, sprayed with herbicide and fungicides. Also, they were typically mowed with a set of gang mowers at 1.5 to 2''.

Today it seems the rough is maintained more like a lush home lawn with heights 3 to 4" and now rotary type mowers are the norm because the they stand the grass up better.
I don't know of any club that maintains their rough at a height of 4 " on a day in and day out basis.

Could you name just five clubs that do this as part of their daily maintainance practices ?[/color]

If the rough were not so penal would the average player still coach his ball into the hazard?

I haven't seen evidence of a general trend at golf/country clubs to keep their roughs so penal.  Could you name five courses that do this as standard fare ?[/color]

Granted the desire for a bunker to be firm and consistent has gotten out of hand, but not raking will lead to all out fistfights among foursomes.

Why ?

It hasn't happened at Pine Valley or Friar's Head.

Why should it happen elsewhere ?[/color]

Sean Arble,

As long as the USGA allows the golfer to test the sand while taking their stance, I see no need for standardizing all bunkers.  It places unnecessary and unreasonable pressure on the superintendent, and budgets.

SPDB,

It's not supposed to be a picnic, it's supposed to be a hazard.
Equipment, grooming and composition have conspired to make them less of a hazard, and thus less effective architectural features.

Was RTJ alone in this movement, or did everyone else do the same thing.  What evidence do you have that leads you to believe that HE had a lot to do with bunker migration ?

Art,

I think it's both.

Members want an instant "game", and failing that, they seek to soften the golf course, generally in the context of their own game.

The "Tour" and TV has been a bad marriage for the conditioning and budgets of local clubs.

It's easy to prepare a course to immaculate conditions when you have the equivalent of an unlimited budget one week per year.  Viewers see that and in turn want their course to look like that 365 days a year.

[Jim Sweeney]

Patrick:

I don't understand your statement that the USGA let's one test the sand when taking the one's stance. The rules allow the golfer stable footing, without building a stance. Of course, one can get a sense of the sand's condition by simply walking into the bunker. As to digging one's feet into the sand, it becomes a matter of degree. At what point does digging in become testing? There is no way to tell. Now if your opponenet volunteered that he was going to "dig in" in order to test the sand, bingo! Claim the hole.

But all that's off the point.

With today's bunker maintenance, position is much more a strategic factor than condition.

My vote is to keep the rakes and reduce grooming by the crew. Then excommunicte the bastards who don't clean up after themselves.

[James Bennett]

following on from the comments about the tour conditions for bunkers - it seems that the condition and speed of the greens can change through a tour event, becoming harder, faster and more challenging with pin placements as each of the 4 days go by.  Why not allow the bunkers to become less maintained over the 4 days?  The bunkers are hand raked by the course quality officials.  Surely that, plus a smooth presentation at the start of the tournament is enough.  Just think, apart from the pro's dealing with an infrequent plugged lie, the viewers might also see the pro's dealing with a bad break - a poor lie in a bunker.  Perhaps then the member perceptions for bunker maintenance and equity might change.

I don't expect this to happen, but wouldn't it be great to see some of the pro tour player creativity from a bad bunker lie, rather than just their incredible skill to tight pins.  Come to think of it, I think Vijay Singh was in a plugged lie at the Sony Open the other day and did try the unconventional plugged lie shot (a pop-up rather than the standard running shot from a plugged lie).  A completely different shot, that almost came off.  So, perhaps if the average player saw the pro's encountering some of a regular bunker/hazard lie, then we might all enjoy our golf and the challenges a bit more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sweeney,

13-3 is clear in the differentiation of the two.

Jame Bennett,

Your scenario would elevate a players concern for hitting his ball into a bunker.

It would have a pronounced mental and physical consequence and as such, bunkers would be more of what they were intended to be, hazards, and strategic focal points.

[David_Tepper]

PGA Tours stats from last year show that the leaders in sand-saves are able to get up and down barely 60% of the time. The average PGA tour player gets up and down a bit less than half the time. The stats for getting up an down by pitching or chipping off turf are far higher.

Who knows how often the average single-digit handicap saves par from a well-groomed bunker? 1 in 8 times is my (generous) guess.    

While bunkers are hazards, it seems to me they should offer the possiblilty of saving par with a well executed stroke. A miraculous shot should not be required.  

[Doug Siebert]

David,

I kept a few stats last summer for a couple months to settle an argument with someone about sand saves who had just your point of view (pros are 60% so amateurs can't do better than 20%)  I was just over 50% (I'm a 5-ish handicap)  I'll admit that I'm certainly better than most from the sand -- its the only part of the game I'd claim I'm "better than scratch" at.

But I'm nowhere near as good as a pro, despite 50% being close to 60%.  They play on faster greens and with pins cut closer to the edge than we do.  My home course's greens max out at about 10 except for big tournaments.  There might be one or two pins cut PGA Tour distance from the edge of the green but not half of them like they do on Tour.  While the problems inherent in short siding in that situation are obvious, a long bunker shot on a fast green to a pin that's got thick rough 12' behind it isn't easy so its no picnic "long siding" yourself on tour either.  If they played the same bunker shots I was 50% at they'd probably do 80% or maybe even 90%.

Speaking as one of the people who wants his ball to get in the bunker most of the time, if you want to stop me and Mickelson from doing that, mow the area around the greens!  There's a limited number of options from thick rough, and odds are I'll do worse from a bad lie in the rough than from a bad lie in the bunker (plugged lies or crazy stances excepted) unless you have  some very deep or pot bunkers.  The containment mounding used to shield cart paths and housing on many courses only makes this worse, because the thick grass will cause my ball to stick to the side of the mound and leave a really crazy shot!  So yeah, I'm much better off in the bunker most of the time.

[TEPaul]

Actually, this is a very timely thread for me and my golf course. We apparently need to find ways to cut our 2005 budget to the tune of about $30,000. Our last green committee meeting just a week or so ago spent a considerable amount of its meeting time discussing general ways to do that.

Before the discussion of various ways to do that got underway I proposed that all "in play areas" (tees, greens and fairways) should be exempt from the discussion and we should at first concentrate only on so-called "penal areas" (roughs and bunkering) to see if we could manage to find the entire saving in that area.

The super threw out the proposal that doing away with the first cut of rough would save quite a bit but then a few members of the committee said neither they nor the membership would appreciate it if their ball rested against the edge of the primary cut of rough and the fairway!! (Do you believe it?   ).

So I proposed that we look at cutting down on bunker maintenance particularly the crew's constant or regular raking of the sand surfaces. (By the way, my club went to hand raking all the bunkers this year vs sand-proing them and found that the cost was basically a wash!!   ).

But once I get some cost saving figures on reducing the hand raking of the bunkers by say something like half, it will be most interesting to see how my proposal to say cut hand-raking frequency in half will be received.
My sense is if you want to see the "shit hit the fan" come watch the reaction when I propose that!!  

Maybe I should be a clever negotiator by starting out proposing we cut out raking the bunkers on the part of the crew altogether and when the screaming begins I'll state that somewhere between no raking and cutting it in half is all that should be acceptable as a discussion point and that the area of cutting it in half and not cutting it out at all should not be up for discussion!  

[TEPaul]

Of course the first thing I should do is find out if sand-pros only have a single use on the golf course and if they do I'm gonna propose we sell the damn things (although that would only be a one time savings!).  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Patrick,

I have heard that argument about improving your lie by grounding your club and I never remember to try it when I am playing just to see how much I can improve my lie in a bunker by grounding my club.  My thought has always been that to make a significant improvement in one's lie by grounding you certainly run the risk of causing the ball to move.  I just think the creative design options for bunkering are better if some people were less concerned about this rule.  

Lou,

I don't think a bunker that does not allow you to advance the ball all the way to the green is one dimensional and reduces your options. For a minute please disregard your statement about a bunker that only allows a wedge shot back into the fairway, that is not a correct interpretation of what I was saying.  If for instance the distance to the green is a 5 iron but the bunker at best will allow you no more than a 7 iron shot or less, then the design of the green angle and the elements in front of you should be interesting enough to have you weigh the options that range between a SW and a 7 iron and at what angle do you prefer to enter the green on the next shot,  at what distance would you like to be because of the green design and to what level of risk are you willing to go to meet the angle, lie, distance etc. in order to leave yourself with the best possible next shot.  That to me introduces much thought about strategy and does promote excitement in recovery shots. I totally agree that one of the most exciting elements of golf is when one is faced with a recovery shot and much can be said about the quality of a player based upon their ability to adjust to adversity and respond in the proer way, not always heroic but certainly that is one way, but smart as well. Furthermore back at the tee if the fairway bunker is as you described in your original post, shallow, low lip toward the green side, then I think you have severely diminished the quality of the options or choices that face you on the tee.  So options from the bunker begin with the options that are presented at the tee, and the natural elements that are infused into the design help scramble any feeling that there is rigidity in the design, that a template hole has been presented as opposed to a hole that someone obviously discovered on the land and pondered for many hours or days while walking it back and forth.  Earlier we got into a discussion about how computers have helped design and I think some questioned the importance of these instruments, and one architect said well if you disregard computers in design then that is your loss.  Now go and read the Links article about Coore Crenshaw and Bandon Trails and their methodology for design which I will just boil down simply to being in the field and grinding out the design, now what architect worth their salt wouldn't want to conduct their business in that manner, how many would still say you know what give me my computer and a few site visits as opoosed to constant immersion in the field day in day out grinding out the design walking the land, now who looks outdated in their approach to design, the guy with the advanced computer, and the various software packages that can read everything and spit out intricate information about the land or the guy in the field, no computer, just two legs, and an observant seraching mind.  of those two architects who represents the future and who is outdated?  so in the field design in the field spotting and cutting out of bunkers will not always yield the bunker that allows you to advance the ball to the green but it will allow you to stand in that bunker walk out of that bunker judge the type of clubs that can extract a ball, how far each shot will go where they will land what is there where they will land how that sizes up with the approach into the green and so forth.  Much less of a template approach as compared to what I thought you were saying in you original post. But obiviously you have found much information in your study of MacKenzie and I see no need for you to look further and even consider anything I have to say on the subject.  You have found the ark of the covenent in MacKenzie.  Enjoy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

13-3 deals with taking your stance not grounding your club.

I have never proposed allowing the club to be grounded in a hazard, you have me confused with Kelly Blake Moran.


Kelly Blake Moran,

There is a sign that hangs over the doorway as you exit the men's locker room at Southern Hills.

It says something to the effect of:

"When the rules are broken at leisure, the game ceases to be golf."

I don't think advocating a breach in the rules, for the express purpose of custom tailoring bunkers to specific design criteria, is good for the game.

David Tepper,

You wouldn't equate chipping from three feet short of the green to a bunker shot, would you ?

Lost in your 60 % statistic is the impact of putting.
Years ago, I remember a statistic from a US Open that said that the contestants were 50 % from 6 feet.

So, if everyone hit their bunker shot to 6 feet, the statistic would be 50 % recovery, but, you indicate that it's 60 %, so they must be hitting it closer, which means that the bunkers have lost their function, that of a meaningful hazard.

et. al.,

Regarding bunkers, didn't Donald Ross state that:
"it is the business of all players to AVOID them."  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Patrick,

I am not advocating a breach, I am advocating a change in the rules.  As far as my violating the rule I only mentioned that in the context of experimenting.

I think Sean's concerns about practice swings could be addressed.  Like any change all the angles need to be hashed out and there is always ways to address unforeseen ramifications.

[Ken Fry]

To reiterate my initial post in this discussion, I offer the following quote speaking of the practice of "furrowing" the bunkers in the early 1900's, also an attempt to bring back the challenge:

"The Oakmont furrows seemed to say, `Well here you are in a bunker, and it doesn't matter how good you are, or how much nerve you have, the only thing you can do now is blast.`  Yet, a furrowed bunker, supposedly to reward a skillful player, absolutely precludes the use of a recovery shot requiring more than the application of a strong back and a willing heart!  I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for its difficulty is its greatest charm.  But when, in spite of the vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting."

Written by Bobby Jones after the 1925 U.S. Open at Oakmont.

Take the ideas and suggestions thus far in this discussion and alter the year and you'd never know the difference.  Discuss the architectural merits of bunkers, not the maintenance.

[JESII]

Would anyone argue my statement that Flynn, AWT, Ross, etc... use of bunkers was more 'architecturally valuable' than many of todays architects?

Is that what this thread is asking? Or is the thread asking, for example, if a particular bunker has lost some of its 'architectural value' due to some evolution in the game and its maintanance and equipment standards?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Fry,

Had the Sand Wedge been invented by Gene Sarazen when Jones made his statement ?

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

It wouldn't have mattered.  The furrows he's talking about at Oakmont created 2"-3" rows of sand throughout the bunker.  Bobby Jones point is as relevant now as it was then:  by eliminating the possibility of a "skillful" recovery shot, the challenge of the game is eliminated.

By not raking bunkers or other suggestions posed so far, getting into a bunker would mean a blind blast to get out.  No skill, no strategy.  Is that then the desire of everyone making suggestions to create a more "penal" hazard?

Does the PGA Tour go overboard by mandating sand levels, firmness and consistency from event to event?  I believe so, but that is a separate issue.  Many new courses are dumbed down to cater to speed of play and "pretty" issues.  Therefore, have bunkers lost their strategic value?  At many courses, they sure have.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This may be a case of us overrating based on anecdotal evidence.

I checked the Tour Stats and up and downs from bunkers for the average player (no. 92 out of 180) was 47%.  For the middle level player up and down from non bunker green areas was almost 66%.  Even if you count chips from the fringe that are of equal difficulty as long putts, I think you can make a case that, at worst, the bunker is an equal challenge when missing a green.

Even as a different but equal challenge, the bunker has its place, and affects strategy.  If that up and down stat is correct, then it is still effective, at least for most tour players.

Then, factor in the fact that for the rest of us bunker play is more challenging, and its clear they are still effective.