Have bunkers lost some of their architectural value ?

[ForkaB]

One cannot and should not compare "sand saves" to chips from just off the green.  Compare like to like, i.e. bunker saves vs. pitches from tight lies in grassy hollows--e.g. to the mid-far right of #6 at Dornoch.  As deep as the right front bunker is on that hole (8 ft?) I'd bet on even the worst sand save pro getting up and down from it twice as often as getting up and down from the hollow.

[SL_Solow]

I believe this issue is the ultimate result of the change in emphasis from match play to medal competitions.  The concern is that the game will be unfair as conditions will change throughout the day.  In a match, the players are on each hole at the same time so they face the same conditions and rub of the green is less difficult to accept.  Of course wind velocity and direction changes, the grass grows, it may rain, temperatures vary etc but these are beyond man's control.  So we seek fairness in bunkers as a means of insurinf fairness..  The problem is compounded by the delusional member who insists that his home course be maintained to "tour standards', as if the PGA tour is a model for maintenance.  Nonetheless during my term as a greens chairman I continually face the type of complaints referenced by many in this thread emanating from self appointed maintenace experts who have no conception of what it takes to grow grass and whose idea of architectural excellence is usually based on how a design change will effect their game.  We generally ignore them but it causes headaches for our greenkeeper.

[Pat K]

    I've only skimmed many of these posts but it seems that the discussion deals mainly with fairness or degree of difficulty.
     One aspect missing from the conversation of bunker maintenance and uniformity or consistancy is does it remove some of the variety and local knowledge from the game. By that I mean when playing a course is the game more interesting when the bunkers vary in how they play. If a bunker which is in the floodplain is more firm than a bunker on high ground is that such a bad thing? Particulary on a members course if every bunker plays the same doesn't that diminish the game. It feeds right into the dial in the yardage mentality.
      When you have a couple of buddies out for a game isn't it fun to pull off a shot that they just blew over the green because you knew a little more about the conditions?
       why limit the fun for the sake of uniformity.
    just a thought.

[TEPaul]

Ken Fry said:

"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."

I agree with Ken. For the purposes of the discussion of the subject of this thread the participants in the discussion should at least remember to make the important distinction between "architectural value" and "maintenance value" as either of them relates to playability.

Some speak of these two things in the same breath or as the same subject----they are not---they're very different subjects and for the purposes of this discussion we should remember to keep them separated.

[Doug Siebert]

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.

Patrick,

I remember seeing someone link to some data from shotlink in 2004 that had the 50% putting level for the top putters at 10 feet on tour now.  I suspect that the better maintained greens we have today versus even 20-25 years ago would be the cause.  I was surprised that 10 feet was the breakeven since Pelz has said for years it was 6 feet, but he did most of his research on putting in the late 70s I believe.

But you are correct that putting has much to do with the success level of sand saves.  When I'm off in my short putting my entire short game gets worse, and by more than the added strokes the misses cause.  If I feel that even a 3 to 4 footer is not a simple proposition, which will happen to me a couple times a year when I have a run of poor putting and lose confidence, I feel a great deal of pressure on my short game to try to get the ball dead up to the pin.  On the other hand, when I'm putting really well and feel a great deal of confidence in making anything up to 10 or 12 feet (even though I don't actually make them all up to that length, I feel I have a very good chance of doing so) I hit my short game shots close to the hole because I feel no pressure to get it close since I feel even a lackluster shot that leaves me a 12 footer can still be drained so long as I don't leave myself the worst possible placement in addition to the large miss.

When I watch the pros out of the sand, it seems like they hit an awful lot very close, inside 3 feet or so and often inside a foot.  Those are the easy ones.  Then they have the rest spread out at all sorts of distances up to 25 or 30 feet occasionally.  Even a poor putter on tour is going to make almost every one of the close ones (if you can't drain it from 3 feet week in and week out you won't last long on tour!)  So while putting certainly enters into it, I think it may work more like how it works for me.  Or be like Nicklaus, and hardly ever hit it into the sand!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

How is the "top putters' defined or quantified ?

Perhaps the guys who are at the top of their game that week putt that way, but, I'll bet that the guys who missed the cut didn't.

10 feet seems very long.
In fact, I'll take that bet at even money.

Ken Fry,

I don't know if you've ever seen the rake that created the furrows, or a bunker after it had been raked with one, but they were clearly intended to impede recovery beyond a limited distance.

Were they just used on fairway bunkers, or on all bunkers ?

Some could claim that the penalty for entry was excessive, others could claim that the bunkers took on a heightened significance as a result.

Not raking bunkers, but smoothing one's footprints wouldn't create the same effect as the furrowed rakes.

Sand selection, up-sloping the front, wetting and packing make recovering from bunkers much easier for everyone and it defeats their primary purposes, that of a hazard and a highly effective architectural feature which dramatically affects strategy.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm just reporting what I recall hearing.  I couldn't find the exact article, but a bit of googling turned this up:

http://www.mcall.com/sports/golf/all-chor-pgacol-122204,0,60930.story?coll=all-sportsgolf-hed

The link is a bit screwed up so you'd have to cut and paste it into your browser, but its got a few tidbits about putting.  Last year the PGA Tour average was to make just under 70% of putts from 6 feet.  The best putter from 6 feet made just under 90% of putts!!  The top guy from 9 to 10 feet made 65.1%, O'Meara was the top guy from 10 to 15 feet making 43.4%.  So it sure sounds like the best putters on the PGA tour would be making over 50% of their 10 foot putts.

It also mentions that the average bunker shot on tour was left 9 feet 10 inches from the hole, and the pros got up and down from the sand 49.1% of the time.

[TEPaul]

The old "furrow" rakes of Oakmont were probably basically a form of invention by Fownes and Loeffler (I believe there's a photo of one in GeoffShac's "Golden Age of Golf Design"). That form of bunker sand maintenance was famous, highly controversial and it didn't last all that long at Oakmont.

On the other hand, still today, SOME of the bunkers of Oakmont CAN BE VERY ARCHITECTURALLY penal in the sense that recovery can be "iffy", particularly the church pew type bunkers on the course but others as well. Why is that? It's simply because if your ball happens to be too close to the very abrupt front edge of those bunkers (fairway) (or the back edge of some of the church pews) you just can't hit a recovery shot very far.

This is an architectural condition of SOME of the bunkers of Oakmont that most certainly does get in the heads of strategic players and it always has.

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

From comments made by players of the era, furrows not only impeded distance, but any other option but to blast out.  Strategy and skill where then removed and replaced by an action anyone can do.  For this, the practice of furrowing was eliminated.

Following your rationale to an extreme, why not just make bunkers small water hazards or out of bounds?  This would accomplish your goal of placing more emphasis on them to the player.  These areas would then be avoided at all costs because of a guarenteed loss of stroke, just as your unraked bunker plan.

I still return to my original point.  Are we discussing the architectural merits of bunkers or the maintenance of them?  Because Oakmont did away with furrowing, are their bunkers not as strategic as they could be?

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
Since we are talking about furrows and church pews, here is a little more background on Fownes and Loeffler to set the records straight.  Both believed bunkers should present problems (encourage thinking and strategy) while at the same time they should punish.  They liked deep bunkers and they would have made their bunkers at Oakmont even deeper were it not for the heavy clay soils.  To compensate, Loeffler developed a heavy jagged-tooth rake to create those infamous deep furrows gouged into the course river sand.  They both admired the deep pot bunkers of the British Isles courses for their exquisite punishment, but since they couldn’t have them on the Oakmont site, they tried to duplicate the punishment with their furrows.  As with a pot bunker, the ball couldn’t be advanced very far.  Just getting out was a success.  Their furrows accomplished this same punishment.  Though Loeffler and Fownes surely would have objected, the furrows were eliminated by the time Oakmont hosted the 1962 U.S. Open.

In addition to deep bunkers, Loeffler and Fownes tended to build bunkers wherever an errant tee shot landed that wasn’t punished.  Oakmont ended up with over 350 bunkers during the first few decades of the 1900’s.

As time passed and hazards became expensive maintenance liabilities, the number was slowly reduced.  However, this was done very methodically by Loeffler and Fownes.  The story of the creation of the famous “church pew” bunkers well worth noting.  When people griped that Oakmont had too many bunkers, Loeffler combined some rows of slender bunkers into larger single ones.  Just to make things interesting, he retained strips of turf that had previously separated the bunkers and thus created Oakmont’s famous “church pews”.  Most have eroded away but they are still evident on the 3rd, 4th and 15th holes.  

FYI,
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

From comments made by players of the era, furrows not only impeded distance, but any other option but to blast out.
 

Strategy and skill where then removed and replaced by an action anyone can do.  For this, the practice of furrowing was eliminated.

The more penal nature of a bunker the more it heightens it's strategic importance, and the skill required to avoid it
THE critical issue is: to avoid them at all costs.[/color]

Following your rationale to an extreme, why not just make bunkers small water hazards or out of bounds?
For the very reason you state, because that would be going to the extreme.  There is NO hope for recovery from a water hazard, with an automatic one shot penalty, and an effective two shot penalty for OB.

THe intent of a bunker is to send a tactical signal to the eye, to alert the golfer of its existance and FUNCTIONS, strategic, aesthetic, etc.,etc..[/color]

This would accomplish your goal of placing more emphasis on them to the player.  These areas would then be avoided at all costs because of a guarenteed loss of stroke, just as your unraked bunker plan.

That's not true, and you keep trying to take the example to the extreme, unraked bunkers don't automatically and irretrievably penalize the golfer 1 or 2 strokes.
Anyone who has played Friar's Head or Pine Valley can attest to that.  What they do is prevent a prefered playing surface from altering the very function of its architectural existance, THAT OF BEING A HAZARD. [/COLOR]

I still return to my original point.  Are we discussing the architectural merits of bunkers or the maintenance of them?

I'm surprised that you don't see the integral or symbiotic relationship between the two.[/color]

Because Oakmont did away with furrowing, are their bunkers not as strategic as they could be?

Yes. they're less strategic[/color]

[Jeff Goldman]

I think you are being too general.  Didn't Donald Ross build greens where the shape and contour made it easier to get up and down from a bunker on one side than from the grass on the other?

And if you should try to avoid bunkers AT ALL COSTS, won't that diminish the strategic nature of holes where to get the better shot at the green you have to flirt with a bunker?

That said, for the best players, bunkers seem to have lost some of their architectural meaning, but I would like to know if in decades past the best players occasionally (or more often) wanted to be in a bunker rather than in the rough - Olympic in the 50s or 60s, Merion.  If so, Then it isn't clear just how much they have lost.  For us schleppers, having at least some chance at recovery may enhance strategy, because we are more willing to risk going into bunkers, rather than taking the automatically safe way out.

Jeff Goldman

[Mark_Fine]

In our upcoming book on Hazards, there is a section on great architects (past and present) and their thoughts on hazards.  Here are just a few of my favorite quotes from John Low.  Low was never a practicing architect but his writing on golf course architecture had a strong influence on the profession in the early 1900’s.  I think many architects would agree with all of these.  However, whether they practice that theory is another matter.

"Just as close as he dare: that’s golf, and that’s a hazard of immortal importance!  For golf at its best should be a contest of risks.  The fine player should, on his way round the links, be just slipping past the bunkers, gaining every yard he can, conquering by the confidence of his own “far and sure” play."
 
"The true hazard should draw play towards it, should invite the golfer to come as near as he dare to the fire without burning his fingers.  The man who can afford to take the risks is the man who should gain the advantage."
 
"Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored."

"By placing the hazards close in on the fairway, golf becomes a contest of risks, the perfect shot betters the imperfect, and accuracy gets its full reward."  

I might add my own comment, if a bunker does not possess a risk, is it really a hazard?  
Mark

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

I won't pull your quotes down and then type in red to address each one, but I will say this.

I may be going to extremes in my examples, but your argument is too general to be applied.  Remember, one bunker, ALL BUNKERS, unless we are addressing waste bunkers, an issue I won't even touch.  Shallow, uninteresting bunkers with little challenge will be treated as the Road Hole bunker.  I can't see there being a need to make that bunker more of a challenge.  Should ALL bunkers (take away construction constraints) be built with the same challenge as the Road Hole bunker?

You mention my not understanding the "integral and symbolic relationship" between bunker maintenance and a bunker's architectural significance.  Bunkers are used in many ways in course design and not always as a punishment to players.  

What would be the worst thing a course to do to their bunkers?  Put NO sand in them.  Now players are hitting off hardpan.  No need for rakes.  A player could even ground his club.  Trying to get a ball up in a hurry to a tight pin and stopping is now impossible.

If the basis for your argument is the result of how the best players in the world treat bunkers, direct comments toward the PGA Tour field staff and the USGA.  Each organization demands bunkers reach a level of consistency and condition for each site they have an event on (on the National level).  The players rarely have to guess what will happen when they enter a bunker.  They already know.

I know each different course I play will provide different conditions in their bunkers, whether in pristine condition or not.  I believe the challenge remains for 99% of the golfing population, so why jump to extreme changes for the remaining 1%?  Isn't this the similar argument for the lengthenning of courses?

[Tom_Doak]

When I first started reading about golf, thirty years ago, bunker sand varied tremendously from course to course.  I believe there was a passage in The World Atlas of Golf [or maybe a different book] about the "river sand" in the bunkers at Southern Hills and how difficult it made recoveries.

Nowadays course developers want the sand to be perfect.  The sand at The Bear's Club in Florida was brought in from Ohio by its developer and architect.

Having no rakes is a pretty extreme statement and most course owners are afraid to make it, but the first step would be for them to use a local sand at a reasonable cost instead of spending $50,000 more to get perfect sand.

[Ken Fry]

"Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored."

"By placing the hazards close in on the fairway, golf becomes a contest of risks, the perfect shot betters the imperfect, and accuracy gets its full reward."  

I might add my own comment, if a bunker does not possess a risk, is it really a hazard?  
Mark

Mark,

You just verbalized what I've been trying to say to Pat.  If a bunker poses a strategic challenge inherent to the design, then why would extreme maintenance measures be required?

Ken

[Adam_F_Collins]

... the first step would be for them to use a local sand at a reasonable cost instead of spending $50,000 more to get perfect sand.

I find that this 'perfect' sand also adds to an unnatural appearance, especially on sites where natural or local sand is apparent. Northumberland Links here in Nova Scotia made a transition from local to silica this year, and I was really disappointed. They are a seaside course, and the natural red-earth sand fits in and sort of celebrates the region.

The super there was really excited about the new sand, he explained, "because it's so nice to hit out of."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Didn't Donald Ross build greens where the shape and contour made it easier to get up and down from a bunker on one side than from the grass on the other?

Could you cite some examples of where he did this ?

Could you also cite where he indicated that this was part of his design philosophy ?[/color]

And if you should try to avoid bunkers AT ALL COSTS, won't that diminish the strategic nature of holes where to get the better shot at the green you have to flirt with a bunker?

No, that's the challeng of the game.
I believe Ross alludes to the difficulty of the game being part of the attraction to the game.

And, I can only cite what Donald Ross said.
It would help if you read his chapters entitled "bunkers" and "No bunker is misplaced"[/color]

That said, for the best players, bunkers seem to have lost some of their architectural meaning, but I would like to know if in decades past the best players occasionally (or more often) wanted to be in a bunker rather than in the rough - Olympic in the 50s or 60s, Merion.  If so, Then it isn't clear just how much they have lost.

It is clear that the sand wedge and Lob wedge have had a major impact on recovery.

It's also clear that manicured, or specially prepared conditions have made it easier to extract ones ball at every level.

It's clear that specialty clubs have had a major impact on recovering from fairway bunkers[/color]

For us schleppers, having at least some chance at recovery may enhance strategy, because we are more willing to risk going into bunkers, rather than taking the automatically safe way out.

That doesn't make sense, why would a player of LESS skill challenge an architectural feature that requires MORE skill in extracating one's ball ?[/color]
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I may be going to extremes in my examples,

You are.[/color]

but your argument is too general to be applied.
What argument ? [/color]

Remember, one bunker, ALL BUNKERS, unless we are addressing waste bunkers, an issue I won't even touch.  Shallow, uninteresting bunkers with little challenge will be treated as the Road Hole bunker.  I can't see there being a need to make that bunker more of a challenge.  Should ALL bunkers (take away construction constraints) be built with the same challenge as the Road Hole bunker?

You're going to extremes again.

I'm not going to discuss each specific bunker on every hole at every golf course.   If you can't understand the global nature of the issue and problem, I don't know how I can get you to grasp it.[/color]

You mention my not understanding the "integral and symbolic relationship" between bunker maintenance and a bunker's architectural significance.  Bunkers are used in many ways in course design and not always as a punishment to players.
Would you please look up the definition of the word Hazard.
Then go to the definitions section of, "The Rules of Golf"
Look up the word "hazard", then look up the work "bunker"
Then cite for me the ways in which bunkers aren't used to punish players.[/color]  

What would be the worst thing a course to do to their bunkers?  Put NO sand in them.  Now players are hitting off hardpan.  No need for rakes.  A player could even ground his club.  Trying to get a ball up in a hurry to a tight pin and stopping is now impossible.

Another extreme.

Actually, they might become easier, as balls hit into them would bounce onto the green, and balls coming to rest in them could be putted out.

But, Please try restricting your comments to reality[/color]

If the basis for your argument is the result of how the best players in the world treat bunkers, direct comments toward the PGA Tour field staff and the USGA.

The basis of my argument is both the methods of maintainance and alteration/softening of bunkers on golf courses.

In addition, I, and many golfers I play with, prefer that their ball come to rest in a bunker rather then alternate locations
[/color]

Each organization demands bunkers reach a level of consistency and condition for each site they have an event on (on the National level).  

Why must consistency and conditioning be a demand product?
[/color]

The players rarely have to guess what will happen when they enter a bunker.  They already know.

That's part of the problem, bunkers have lost their function.[/color]

I know each different course I play will provide different conditions in their bunkers, whether in pristine condition or not.  I believe the challenge remains for 99% of the golfing population, so why jump to extreme changes for the remaining 1%?

You're the one who jumps to extremes.

The challenge has been diminished for all levels of golfers, and, superintedents are being pressured to groom bunkers beyond practical standards, and at great cost.[/color]

Isn't this the similar argument for the lengthenning of courses?


NO.

Moving a tee from location A back 40 yards to location B doesn't affect ongoing maintainance practices ?

The new tee isn't treated differently then the old tee was.
It's existance doesn't bring with it an inherent increase in maintainance practices and costs.

If moving a tee back preserves the architectural and shot value of the hole or shot, what's wrong with that ?

Flynn and other architects built flexibility into their designs, allowing for lengthening in the future.  It's called, elasticity.[/color]

[Jeff Goldman]

Didn't Donald Ross build greens where the shape and contour made it easier to get up and down from a bunker on one side than from the grass on the other?

Could you cite some examples of where he did this ?

I WILL WHEN I GET HOME.  I BELIEVE TOM DOAK DISCUSSED SUCH HOLES IN ANATOMY OF A GOLF COURSE

Could you also cite where he indicated that this was part of his design philosophy ?

SAME[/color]

And if you should try to avoid bunkers AT ALL COSTS, won't that diminish the strategic nature of holes where to get the better shot at the green you have to flirt with a bunker?

No, that's the challeng of the game.
I believe Ross alludes to the difficulty of the game being part of the attraction to the game.

And, I can only cite what Donald Ross said.
It would help if you read his chapters entitled "bunkers" and "No bunker is misplaced"

MY POINT IS THAT IF A BUNKER IS TO BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS, NO ONE WILL GO NEAR IT, EVERYONE WILL PLAY SAFE, AND STRATEGIC INTEREST WILL BE DIMINISHED.[/color]

That said, for the best players, bunkers seem to have lost some of their architectural meaning, but I would like to know if in decades past the best players occasionally (or more often) wanted to be in a bunker rather than in the rough - Olympic in the 50s or 60s, Merion.  If so, Then it isn't clear just how much they have lost.

It is clear that the sand wedge and Lob wedge have had a major impact on recovery.

It's also clear that manicured, or specially prepared conditions have made it easier to extract ones ball at every level.

It's clear that specialty clubs have had a major impact on recovering from fairway bunkers[/color]

For us schleppers, having at least some chance at recovery may enhance strategy, because we are more willing to risk going into bunkers, rather than taking the automatically safe way out.

That doesn't make sense, why would a player of LESS skill challenge an architectural feature that requires MORE skill in extracating one's ball ?

IF THERE IS SOME HOPE FOR RECOVERY, THEN I AM MORE LIKELY TO TRY TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE ON MY NEXT SHOT BY RISKING THE BUNKER.  BUT IF THE BUNKER IS ABSOLUTE DEATH, I WON'T GO NEAR IT.  AGAIN, STRATEGIC CHOICE IS ELIMINATED IF THE BUNKER IS TO BE AVOIDED "AT ALL COSTS."  THUS, PLAYERS OF LESS SKILL MAY STILL BE TEMPTED AND RISK TANGLING WITH A FEATURE THAT REQUIRES MORE SKILL, PROVIDING IT IS NOT TO BE AVOIDED "AT ALL COSTS."[/color]
 

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

Your last statement and your third statement are in total conflict with one another.

How do you reconcile that ?

[Ken Fry]

[/b][/color]

Remember, one bunker, ALL BUNKERS, unless we are addressing waste bunkers, an issue I won't even touch.  Shallow, uninteresting bunkers with little challenge will be treated as the Road Hole bunker.  I can't see there being a need to make that bunker more of a challenge.  Should ALL bunkers (take away construction constraints) be built with the same challenge as the Road Hole bunker?

You're going to extremes again.

I'm not going to discuss each specific bunker on every hole at every golf course.   If you can't understand the global nature of the issue and problem, I don't know how I can get you to grasp it.[/color]

Apparently you can not understand the "global" nature.  What doesn't work here in your opinion also doesn't work in Scotland?  Ireland?  Australia?  Are we in a worldwide epidemic?!?!

[/color]  

If the basis for your argument is the result of how the best players in the world treat bunkers, direct comments toward the PGA Tour field staff and the USGA.

The basis of my argument is both the methods of maintainance and alteration/softening of bunkers on golf courses.

In addition, I, and many golfers I play with, prefer that their ball come to rest in a bunker rather then alternate locations
[/color]

Funny, the people I play with like playing from the green.  Maybe this is where our differences lie....

Pat,

The President's Cup was played at Royal Melbourne a handful of years ago.  The bunkers were prepared in a unique way where the sides were left very hard and the bottoms of each bunker were "prepared."  The course played very firm and fast so if a ball was hit into a bunker, recovery was extremely difficult.  For that course at that time, that was an appropraite way to return the challenge.  Would that work at other locations?  It's not fair to expect that.

I brought up the PGA Tour and USGA to support YOUR point that due to their site requirments, bunkers are maintained where much of the inconsistency is removed, thereby eliminating the challenge.

By the way, a bunker is a "prepared area of ground."  By your argument (and yes, you are making an argument) a bunker would not be preparded, thereby changing its definition with the USGA.  Is this also your desire?

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

Bottom line is I see you making a mountain out of a mole hill.  The challenge is not gone out of bunkers for most players, especially bunkers with exceptional depth.

Like maintenance across the board, expense has gotten out of control.  Customers are demanding certain conditions.  If they don't get it, they go somewhere else.  From what I see out of the majority of golfers, they are still avoiding the bunkers at all costs.  You and your friends are in the minority of exceptional ability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The President's Cup was played at Royal Melbourne a handful of years ago.  The bunkers were prepared in a unique way where the sides were left very hard and the bottoms of each bunker were "prepared."  The course played very firm and fast so if a ball was hit into a bunker, recovery was extremely difficult.  For that course at that time, that was an appropraite way to return the challenge.  Would that work at other locations?  It's not fair to expect that.

Another extreme ?
You are adept at posturing extremes.

I would venture to say that if I took a blind survey of superintendents, that they would want to maintain their bunkers differently then they are being forced to maintain them today.[/color]

I brought up the PGA Tour and USGA to support YOUR point that due to their site requirments, bunkers are maintained where much of the inconsistency is removed, thereby eliminating the challenge.

Unfortunately, this is occuring at the local club level as well, and, it's an unnecessary pressure on the superintendent and a costly drain on the green budget.[/color]

By the way, a bunker is a "prepared area of ground."  By your argument (and yes, you are making an argument) a bunker would not be preparded, thereby changing its definition with the USGA.

Ken, Ken, Ken,

Please understand the difference between the definitions and practical applications of the words "prepared", "maintained" and "groomed".

Please also understand that the word "prepared' doesn't connote a time frame, such as an hourly or daily activity.  

But, It was a nice try.  [/color]

Is this also your desire?

No, my desire is to have them return the "STYMIE" to match play.[/color]  

Ken,

The amazing thing is that some of the fellows I play with on a regular basis are high handicaps, 16-23, and with specialty clubs, bunkers, for them, aren't nearly the hazard today that they were 10-20-30-40 years ago.

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat, they are?  How?  I think they make the same point - that a bunker giving no chance for recovery is not necessarily a good thing for strategic play or good architecture.  Obviously, hazards must be penal in order to present enough risk to make people think, but impossible - not always.