Flat Bottomed Bunkers

[ForkaB]

Sounds like a Queen song.....

Richard Mandell's (excellent) interview mentioned this concept while talking about Ross' bunkering strategy.  It reminded me of my recent games at Deal and The Old Course, each of which seemed to be set up with precisely this philosophy.  What effectively happens with flat bottomed bunkers is that a shot which enters them at any sort of pace will roll all the way to the front.  Now, if the fronts of these bunkers are revetted to a nearly vertical slope (as those at Deal and TOC are), progress forward is impossible (as is escape backwards), and even sideways escape can be very difficult.  I saw my friend Hoffman have 6-7 tries, from all angles of the compass) at one of the Deal bunkers before admitting defeat.  This was mildy amusing to me until I managed (a week or two later) to pull my 3-wood tee shot at #16 TOC into the Principle's Nose...............

Firstly (partly because I knew I was a superior bunker player to Hoffman), I tried the direct route.  Alas, a 60 degree wedge layed off so as to be nearly horizontal still found it's way eventualy back to my feet.  So, I tried sidieways.  But if your ball is up against the wall of the bunker and the bunker wall is a bit convex, how do you actually get the ball out, or even move it to a bit of sand that is not up against turf?  The answer is, with great difficulty.

After several blows, I did find myself somewhere near the middle of the bunker and felt I could play forward and did, but a little heavy.........and, now I know why Tommy Naccarato has been telling me to rad all these dusty old books!  There are two little friggin' bunkers right behind the major one.  Hence the name of the complex.

Therefore, what?

1.  Some of the bunkers at TOC are multiple penalty hazards.  Expect much more Tigerish strategies (i.e. avoid the bunker sat all costs) at this year's Open from the players.  You might even see some guys taking an unplayable from a fairway bunker and walking back to the tee to reload.

2.  I'm not sure if I like flat bottomed, vertical front wall bunkers.  IMO, at the very least there should be some sort of camber near the wall so that balls do not roll up against the turf.  If a bunker is so penal that you just cannot get out of it in less than two shots, why just not make it a pond?  Yes, I know that would be difficult on sandy soils......

[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

When I played TOC this year with our Irish friend Ronan he mentioned this almost straight away and I have to agree with both of you.  The bottoms of the bunkers are way way too penal especially in bunkers that are penal already.

Brian

[Rick Shefchik]

Rich -- I think you answered your second question earlier in your post. One look at a lie like that, and a prudent player will simply go in, pick up his ball and take an unplayable. (The benefit of a bunker over a pond, in this case, is that you don't lose your ball.)

This is a strong incentive for match play on a course with flat-bottomed bunkers. There's no worse feeling in golf than watching a medal round go down the tubes while you're in the middle of multiple blows of extrication.

[JESII]

Is this bunker design a recent modification at TOC? I've not been there, but it sounds like a different way to make sure bunkers are viewed as hazards for The Open this year. Assuming this setup is a recent change at St Andrews, it is just another example of a course making a significant investment to 'protect' the course for one week every 5-8 years.

[David Sneddon]

JESll:

My recollection of TOC goes back 30 odd years, and the bunkers have always been fairly flat.  They may have done some work in recent years to flatten them even more so, but it was always very common to have your ball in an almost unplayable lie.  They are a true hazard.  Even the New and Jubillee bunkers are similar in that respect.

[JESII]

Thanks David,

My memory is poor, but from watching on TV it seems balls would get to a spot just away from the base of the sod because of a slight sweeping up of the sand into the corner. Is Rich possibly referring to this sweeping up being removed so that a ball is barely even accessible to hit?

[David Sneddon]

Thanks David,

My memory is poor, but from watching on TV it seems balls would get to a spot just away from the base of the sod because of a slight sweeping up of the sand into the corner. Is Rich possibly referring to this sweeping up being removed so that a ball is barely even accessible to hit?

There still some upsweep that I can remember, when I played there last year.  Rich has the most up-to-date knowledge on this subject, though.

[Doug Siebert]

When I was there in 2001, the bunkers at Jubilee were all like this.  Maybe they used it as a test site for flattening the bottoms.  The New wasn't a problem, but that may have been because I played it during on and off light showers and the moisture makes sand stick to the ball and not automatically roll into the lowest part of the bunker.

Have Prestwick's bunkers (like those on #2 where you barely have room to make a swing) ever been any different than this?  I don't think there's any course in GB&I I've played where I see more incidences of multiple strokes being needed to negotiate a bunker.  Including, unfortunately, myself on occasion

Let's face it, the pros are damn good out of the sand, and if this makes them treat bunkers as more of a hazard and think twice before trying to hit a 9i over the Road Bunker and spin it back to the hole, bully for the R&A guys!  Unless the weather is perfect for all four days, no one will repeat Tiger's feat of avoiding bunkers for 72 holes.  Most certainly Tiger won't, with his driver these days he'll be lucky to make through the first 7 without finding either a bunker or the OB stakes!

On the other hand, if you have a flat bottomed bunker and get yourself jammed up against the face, you are pretty much going to play out as safe as possible.  The pros are pretty well aware of their capabilities so they would be more willing to go out sideways than most amateurs, I'd wager.  But if you give it that little bit of upswept sand in the front like they had when I played TOC in 2001, that slight upslope you are hitting off, even though it is only 2 or 3*, is enough to give you some extra confidence and might encourage some more foolish decisions.  A less severe bunker like that is probably more likely to induce a Nakajima-like experience than bunkers like Rich describes, which are more likely to put players in the mind to play out sideways instead of tempting fate with an attempt at advancement.

[TEPaul]

I think we'e seen from British Opens in recent years that many of the bunkers over there are revetted and very flat-bottomed. Many of them are also extremely "clean" (short cropped) around their surrounds.

What does this accomplish? It's pretty obvious it allows the ball to get in them a whole lot more easily than bunkers that are shaggy in their surrounds.

As for truly flat floors, of course that can make extricating the ball really difficult in certain situations but so what?

What are bunkers in golf architecture there for anyway? They are an architect's expression of the strategy of the golf course as well as somewhat of his "artistic" expression.

There's also been this "philosophy" in golf architecture for decades, perhaps even from the beginning of the last century and supported by a number of respected architects (Ross and Hugh Wilson come to mind) that bunkers should extract some kind of "formulaic" or "standardized" penalty---eg a "half" shot, for instance!

What the hell is that all about? It's architectural formulaics and standardization in its worst form and I don't care if the likes of Ross or Hugh Wilson did propose it---in my opinion, it was crap then and it's crap now!

Bunkering at it's best should be "iffy", it should be "unpredictable", in some cases you may have no real idea how many shots it may take you to get out if you make poor decisions along the way. That's the very opposite of formulaics and standardization in architecture and golf!

The unkempt "iffiness" of the sand surfaces of bunkering used to basically do the job of creating unpredicatabilty if one went into a bunker and obviously that created more strategic concern to not do so compared to today when you actually have the likes of touring pros and others screaming "get in the bunker" so some worst fate won't befall them.

We pretty much know that today the "iffiness" of the sand surfaces of bunkering around the world will never again be what it once was---eg "iffy". The last and greatest tragedy was PVGC---it was the last great golf course that never really "maintained" their sand surfaces but it does so now as of about five years ago.

So all that remains then to make bunkering as "iffy" and unpredictable as it should be to be functional and effective as a strategic expression is to make bunkers "architecturally" iffy (since the preparation of sand surfaces falls into the category of "maintenance" not architecture) and flat bottomed floors is one way of dong precisely that.

That's precisely what makes the architecturally sharper edged Raynor courses so interesting and the "Road Hole" bunker so great. Players instinctively know they can make any number if they happen to get too close to the face of that bunker and then presist in making a series of stubborn and unintelligent decisions of how to get out without wasting a number of shots and perhaps a tournament win too. So they take all kinds of steps (strategy) to avoid that bunker in the first place---even some of the greatest like Woods in his last Open win there gladly playing the hole as a slight layup and accepting a few bogies simply to be sure to completely avoid that particular bunker and going on knowing he will probably not lose much if anything to the field over 72 holes. Then you have the uncautious like Tommy Nakajima and David Duval who probably lost the Open on that hole in that bunker by being too close to its face and trying the impossible a number of times instead of using caution and willingly taking perhaps two strokes to extricate themselves from it by using the first stroke to get back away from the face somehow.

Flat bottom bunkers where any golfer runs the risk of getting right up against the face is fantastic, in my opinion. It has a pyschological and actual effect that needs to be preserved and maintained in golf and architect---eg really intelligent and effective strategy from tee to green.

Call it "architectural iffiness" if you want---I do---and it's even more necessary now that we've gone to complete sand surface immaculateness in bunkering around the world, and apparently there's no way to prevent that and go back again to the way playable sand surfaces once were before this era of over-arching maintenance on the sand surfaces of bunkers. Thank God for the advice of Tillinghast who said he'd like to march a herd of elephants through sand bunkers on tournament day!

I can just see it now----someone who actually thinks "formulaics" and "standardization" in golf architecture is a good thing is going to claim that it's unfair because their shot into a flat floored bunker was a better one because it traveled a few feet further and right up against the face than the other guy who hit his ball into the middle of a flat-floored bunker.

That kind of logic and that kind of rationalization and explanation is just total crap, in my opinion. It's the God-damned "game mind" of man (totally defining formulaics and standardization in golf and architecture) at work again just like Max Behr said it was!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

There is nothing wrong with flat bottomed bunkers and their penal nature.

The problem is with the form of play.

Medal.

Water and Out of Bounds aren't forgiving.
Why do some whine for "forgiveness or fairness" when it comes to bunkers ?

As Donald Ross said, "avoid them"

Without them golf would be monotonous.

[ForkaB]

Pat

I personally think that bunkers which allow the possibility of escape (even if saving just some fraction of a shot) are more interesting than ones which are totally penal.  They allow for a richer and more spohisticated use of strategy by the golfer.  That's why I like bunkers better than ponds.  

I must assume that you disagree and are indifferent to whether there should be a pond or a bunker on the 16th at GCGC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

I personally think that bunkers which allow the possibility of escape (even if saving just some fraction of a shot) are more interesting than ones which are totally penal.  They allow for a richer and more spohisticated use of strategy by the golfer.  That's why I like bunkers better than ponds.
I think your example is one of extremes.

Having hit into many steep faced bunkers my ball rarely came to rest in an unplayable situation.

Sand does have a high coefficient of friction, and most balls come to rest before they are up against a bunker wall.[/color]  

I must assume that you disagree and are indifferent to whether there should be a pond or a bunker on the 16th at GCGC.

Why would you assume that I would be indifferent to a pond, with an artificial liner, that requires water from an irrigation system to sustain it, versus, bunkering that was the design intent of the original architects ?   [/color]

[ForkaB]

Sean

You may be right re: Herschel, as the bunker was more of an upslope than flat bottomed, but it was a very difficult get out, IMO, as he (or you or I) would have had to hit it backwards towards the left rough (which would have been yet another penalty stroke given the thickness of the cabbage ther and then).

Pat

The issue is not the height of the bunker face but the flatness of the bottom of the bunker.  You would be surprised at how little friction there is when a ball goes into a fairway bunker at high speed and how little bounce there is off a properly revetted face--but not after you watch the Open next month......

[Kirk Gill]

I personally think that bunkers which allow the possibility of escape (even if saving just some fraction of a shot) are more interesting than ones which are totally penal.  They allow for a richer and more spohisticated use of strategy by the golfer.  That's why I like bunkers better than ponds.

Isn't the richness and sophistication you seek enhanced by different bunkers providing a different level of penalty? Isn't the diversity of golf enhanced by these close-cropped, flat-bottomed bunkers? I like to have them in play, and get great enjoyment out of missing them.

[ForkaB]

I get your point, Kirk, but I still don't see much difference between an unextricable bunker and a pond.  Both are to be avoided at all costs, and the latter (at least) never has to be raked........

[Kirk Gill]

In general I agree with you regarding ponds. There's a particularly excrable hole at a club nearby with two small ponts fronting the green, the same basic size and shape as bunkers might be. Hate it.

But "unextricable" may be overstating your case when it comes to these bunkers. Yes, there are locations in such bunkers that are difficult to get out of in a stroke, but the possibility exists. Do I choose to take a drop and a penalty, or do I try to hit it out and see what happens? There is a chance that the ball won't come to rest against the wall of the bunker......

Possibilities, choices and chances. I like it like that.

[TEPaul]

"....but I still don't see much difference between an unextricable bunker and a pond."


Rich: You don't?

Hit it in a pond, take your penalty shot, drop outside and go from there. How many golfers have you seen play the ball from the bottom of a pond? I bet tour pros Tommy Nakajima and David Duval wished the Road Hole bunker was a small pond---both of them may have won the British Open if it had been.  

Imagine having to hit a ball sideways or backwards out of a bunker into heavy rough! My God how awful----that type of thing should be strictly forbidden---it's far to unstandard and unformulaic.

[Bill_McBride]

Rich - you PULLED your tee ball on #16 TOC into the Principal's Nose?  Nicklaus says playing to the right of the PN is "strictly for amateurs!"  That is pretty scary down that line, with the OB right and bunkers left.  

You're right about those beastly bunkers.  I was in three last May and couldn't do anything but hack it out sideways.  Two doubles and a bogey later...........