Ornamental Bunker Grass, friend or foe

[Carl Ingram]

John Low,

The back bunker on # 12 at ANGC is a bunker that is not easily taken out of play.  The front bunker at # 13 at Pine Tree is not easily taken out of play. Many of the bunkers around the greens at Pine Valley are not easily taken out of play.

Bunkers usually surround most greens and water seems to be introduced to favor only one side of a green thus I think it is easier to take water out of play than it is bunkers, because there is no recovery from water, its use is limited and bunkers are more widely used around a green.

I don't want to speak for him but that's what I felt he was saying.

I also understood that he was saying that it is unusual that you can see the bottom of a greenside bunker and thus would not think twice of challenging it. BUt if that bunker contained an additional hidden hazard it would be excessive.  i don't think he needs to paint a picture or post a picture to communicate that point, it was clear to me.

I have rarely come across deep grass, brush or undergrowth hidden in greenside bunkers so to me his concept seems reinforced by the architects who build golf courses who don't include this feature.  That would seem like what he's saying is correct, that it is bad architecture.

Have you come across this feature ?  If not, you would have to ask why didn't the architect include it if it's not a bad concept or bad architecture.

Plants, even trees have there place in bunkers but I would agree that they should be visible so that  you are given the choice of challenging them based upon the risk reward presented to you by the architect.

Even though it could be a dangerous precedent I agree with him on this issue, it seems pretty obvious.

[John L. Low]

Carl,

Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. It is helpful. I too had already thought of #12 at Augusta. The reason I did not  mention it is that the thicket of growth is mostly behind the bunker. But I do have a question for you. Why is that bunker not "easily" taken out of play but the water in front of the green "easily" taken out of play? In terms of unplayable lies, I have watched the Masters for decades and have seen far more players hit into the water than the weeds/bunker behind the green. Should we get rid of the water on #12 because it is penal and therefore bad architecture?

The reason this is important is because, if we take away bunkers  that are penal because they are next to a green, then we are on a slippery slope, so to speak. Do we not then have to take away the Road Hole bunker? (I brought that example up way back in the beginning and did not get a response.) You don't know what you lie is going to be in there. You might have to hit backwards. Do we not have to then take away the pot bunker on #7 at NGLA? My friend chose to pick up his ball after five attempts at getting out of that pot bunker. And it is right next to a very narrow green and he was pin high in three when he landed there. These are all questions I have asked before, but I think consistency is important here.

Thanks again.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci writes;

A Clay man;

"(.......).  My objection was that a hole had been designed with water left, right and short of the green, and that reeds had been allowed to grow unchecked blocking the golfers view of the boundaries of the green and the water. Hence when a golfer stepped on the tee they didn't know water was there or where the land ended and the water began.  There was no way to tell if the flag stick was ten feet from the water on the left, or ten feet from the water on the right, or ten feet from the water in the front, and as such, that is terrible architecture."


Patrick:

What a complete and utter load of crap that paragraph is! That's not terrible architecture at all--that's great visual deception in architecture!

Does little Patty really need his visual hand held that much? Well get your caddie to tell you where the pin is and where the water is in relation to it! Get him to draw you a map if you must for Chrissakes! Did you know you could even ask another golfer about a pemanent object if you can identify one out there somewhere?

Hell, if I was playing against you and you asked me, I'd give you some deception of another kind! I'd tell you there was 98 feet of green to the left of the pin when in reality there was only 2 feet! (In case you missed the analogy there's a good deal of poetic justice in those numbers alone).

I can just see it now! SPLASH! "Yikes--goddamit to Hell--I've been deceived by everyone!!"

Yes you have!! What a glorious development!!

[Carl Ingram]

John Low,

I think i see part of the problem.  you jump to extremes using extreme examples.

Most of the people you see hitting into the water on # 12 at ANGC aren't doing so because they want to avoid the bunkers, they're doing so because the pin is usually in its saturday or sunday position, close to the water and they want to make birdie.  Add in the unpredictable winds and it contributes to the problem.

For the non pga tour playing member or guest the bunker presents the lesser of two evils, a lesser penal presence than the water and overclubbing makes far more sense.

In addition, the rear bunker is much further removed from the putting surface than the water.  The waters proximaty makes it a more likely target than the bunker.

The front pit bunker on # 7 at NGLA is about 3-4 yards wide, the green is about 50-60 yards wide.  It is easy to avoid if that is your intent.  If you flirt with it you take your chances.
How would you view that bunker or the RHB if an island of brush were in the middle of them.  Contrived ?  Horrible ?  Unnecessary ?  Bad architecture ?  I'd say all of the above.

Pat Mucci never advocated taking away penal bunkers from next to greens, that is a misrepresentation on your part.
He clearly said that he "likes penal bunkers, the deeper and steeper the better".  His objection is to the double penalty presented by invisilbe grass or brush at the bottom of those bunkers, which is not an unreasonable viewpoint.

Consistency is important, but so is honesty.  

[ChipOat]

It appears to me that the protocol for posting, to which there seemed to be some consensus agreement, has been long forgotten on this thread.

Who cares who misunderstood whom and for what reason???  The content of the thread is plenty good enough.

Anyone should be permitted to post whatever makes legitimate sense to them - regardless of how nonsensical and/or oxymoronic it may seem to others.

Please guys - I thought we were over this stuff.

[TEPaul]

Chip Oat:

You're a nice and very fair man! Everyone should be allowed to post whatever they want on this site and not be personally attacked and criticized for whatever they say!

Except, of course, for Pat Mucci! The man is a menace to golf architecture everywhere. If you happen across one of those Hannibal Lecter masks would you buy it for me so I can put it on Pat? I'll pay you triple for it.

Mr. Ingram probably has a point though about Pat's point. But is he saying that extraordinarily penal bunker grass does not belong in a blind bunker right next to a green and this can be proven by the fact that no one has ever seen it anywhere right next to a green in a blind bunker anyway?

Did Pat post a photo or cite a bunker somewhere that's an example of this kind of terrible architecture?

Is all this sort of like saying a blind bunker filled with man-eating alligators is terrible architecture too, and that can be proven by the fact that no one has ever seen such a thing?

Did you happen to notice above where I said Mr Ingram probably has a point about Pat's point? That might make you wonder if I really meant that. If Mr Ingram has a point about Pat's point, then what about Pat's point?

It may sound contradictory but it really isn't. Pat may think he has a point, and others may even think it looks like Pat has a point but in fact he never really does! And when and if anyone actually thinks Pat has a point, just forget about it because it's a certainty that it's so far fetched anyway as to not be worth thinking about!

This is why I've never been able to respond to Pat's points other than to continually point out the ludicrousness of them.

The foregoing logic should be crystal clear to anyone, even including Pat!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Ordinarily, I wouldn't respond to your post regarding the 8th hole at Spanish Bay, a hole that you have probably never seen

My first reaction would be to place an immediate call to:
DR KATZ.  But, in the holiday spirit, I've decided to try to assist you, a task that even St Jude abandoned eight weeks after you began posting on GolfClubAtlas.

But, it's not entirely the holiday spirit that is motivating me.

Fear is motivating me.
It is my fear, that the depravity contained in your above post, may cause you to lose the Presidency of the Coore & Crenshaw fan club, a blow that not even you could recover from.  That would then cause you to have more time to write on GolfClubAtlas, a fate and event that none of us could possibly endure, even in the New Year spirit.

First, what would you do with the thousands of sweatshirts in your garage that say, we love Ben and Bill, with a heart within the outline of the state of Texas, and a big star where Austin is located ?

In addition, it would seriously jeopardize the wonderful book that you and Wayne are preparing, forcing Wayne to choose another pseudo-name as his co-author, a name that would be recognized in golfing circles, lending immediatety credibility to the publication.  A name like...... Pat Mucci.

So, for humanitarian reasons, and to help poor Wayne, I'll try to help you.

The 8th hole at Spanish Bay is a par 3, about 163 yards in length, over water.  At the time I played the hole, tall reeds obscured every feature surrounding the green site.   The only visible clue to the presence of a golf hole was the top of the flag stick.  A golfer could not discern where the land ended and the water began, invisible were the boundaries of the green, the features and conditions surrounding the green, etc., etc..

I'll ask you two questions, and I'll give you a lifeline to Wayne Morrisson if you need it;

1.  Would William Flynn design a hole like this ?
2.  Would Coore & Crenshaw design a hole like this ?

A hole without reference points, where water is a material, yet unknown hazard.

Since you probably haven't played this hole, Imagine the third hole at NGLA with a tee five yards short of the center fairway bunker, and imagine that the entire front of the green as well as extensions further left and right of the green were water, and the only thing visible was the top of the flagstick.

There are very few things in life that I am certain of, however,
if you and I stood on the tee and looked at the flag on #8, I'm certain that your words would be along the lines of:
"What in the world was the guy who designed this hole thinking about, and what was he trying to accomplish"

I am confident that Spock/Paul like mind meld would take place on that tee, and that our thinking would be identical.
If not, I have DR Katz's phone # at the ready.

[RJ_Daley]

TomP and Pat, would you two guys mind if I flat out copy and pasted these exchanges you have been having, and submitted them as a screen play for "Grumpy Old Men III"?  There aren't a team of writers in all of Broadway or Hollywood that could come close to writing stuff this hilarious.  Trouble is that Walter and Jack are dead and I don't know who would play your parts.  Perhaps Hanks for Tom and Ed Asner for Pat? Andy Rooney doesn't actually act, does he?

[TEPaul]

RJ Daley wrote;

"TomP and Pat, would you two guys mind if I flat out copy and pasted these exchanges you have been having, and submitted them as a screen play for "Grumpy Old Men III"?"

RJ;

Of course not! Just remember where to send my royalty check and make sure to send it on time.

Actually, you can send Pat's royalty check to me too. You may not have realized I'm his agent and business manager. That all started when I realized I had to have a dolt foil to make the important things I say on Golfclubatlas properly highlighted.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I swear to God if you sick that quack Katz on me you'll not have a moment's rest. You'll need to look over your shoulder for the rest of your days, and for the remainder of your golfing career you'll confront nothing but the most gnarly ornamental bunker grass within blind bunkers in extremely close proximity to every green you'll ever approach!

[TEPaul]

Pat;

Unfortunately, I actually read the rest of your last post. Will there ever be an end to the fundamental things I have to explain to you about golf and architecture?

I'm not encouraged by your analogy of the 3rd at NGLA with the 8th at Spanish Bay, where apparently you can see the top of the flagstick on both. Didn't anyone ever tell you that in golf it's OK to aim at the flagstick and try to get close to it? Among other things it happens to be the target in golf. So if you can see the top of it you can be assured that the bottom of it and the cup itself is almost always directly below the top of it!

If the super happens to plant the flagstick in the blind water hazard (or in the gnarly ornamental bunker grass in the bunker very close to the green) only then can we talk about this ridiculous line of thinking of yours!

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

Forget about Hanks, Asner and Rooney,
What's wrong with TE and Me playing ourselves ?

Think of the spontaneity.
Think of the insanity.

That way, we'll make more money and with his increased earnings TE will be able to afford Dr Katz full time.
I'll spring for a seperate Winnebago just for Dr. Katz.
This way he can be on 24 hour call and park it next to the stage door, ready to treat TE before, after and during the stage breaks at our performances.

Paging Dr. Katz........ Paging Dr Katz.
Please cancel all appointments and travel plans for 2003.

TEPaul,

Forget the NGLA example.

Think of the 17th at TPC.
Only put up a curtain of reeds that obscures everything from left to right, except the top of the flagstick.

Now do you get it

If not, call, 1-800-DRK-ATZS, and make your first appointment
for January 12, 2003.

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick- Your analogy using TPC would be a good one if 99% of the water on the hole in question wasn't SHORT of the green. WHy can't you seem to comprehend that? Do you remember it differently? The green is wider than wide and shallow with raised plateaus on each of the wide side. There is a sliver (8 yds wide) of grass, long. (approx. left center) then cart path, then gorse, and beyond the dune is an MPCC's Dunes course par 5. The wind, salt air and sheer beauty of that spot are the real obstacles the golfer has to overcome when attempting it.

Since I've never been, I wonder if Ray's creek is high enough to be able to see the water on 12 and 13, or is that pesky burm in the way?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

After a really brisk 78 degree day, I'm sitting here getting ready to close the window as the temperature has really fallen into the mid 60's, yet, I'm laughing my ass off knowing how cold some of you are back there, and have nothing better to do then add further to this insidious thread.

And I thought it was supposed to be so much better back East. Give me a break! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Please, If you have finished shoveling snow from the front walk, please, please pick-up a book and read it, so this thread can be put in the proverbial cyber-closet!

PS, John L. Low is my newest Last Hero. My very last!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

BTW, If you need to reach me, just leave a message and I'll get back to you, because I'll be out at Rustic Canyon tomorrow enjoying some sun and golf!  (In shorts and a short sleeve shirt)

Some of you please take a page from Mike Cirba. He is just as snow bound and still manages to act DECENT!

[John L. Low]

Tommy,

What did I do to become your hero? ? ? I hope it was something good.  :-/

Carl,

You are missing the point of some of what I am saying here. Just for the record, I did not say that players are hitting into the water to avoid the bunkers. What I was saying is that if you decide that the bunkers are UNFAIR because they are too penal for a shot hit that close to the green, then you ought to decide that the water is too penal for a short hit that close to the green. (You mentioned that Pat does not like the double penalty of hitting into the bunker next to a green and finding an unplayable lie. But it is only a double penalty because you would claim, I presume, that the golfer did not know of the grass in the bottom of the bunker. Remember Carl, that bunker is only blind once, as been said here many times by myself, Mike, TEPaul I believe and Adam, maybe others.)

Both features, the bunker and the water are within a few feet of the green. As you yourself said, the majority of players would opt for the bunker because, I assume you meant, they have a chance at some recovery--not to put words into your mouth.

So, if you consider the "ornamental bunker grass" at #12 a "FOE", then using the exact same logic, you would have to consider the water a "FOE". Two features, both within feet of the green, both presenting severe penalties.

And again I say, if you end up declaring the water in front of #12 UNFAIR, then you open up a can of worms that would cover the whole of the golf architecture world. We would be on a slippery slope where features like three inch rough would be UNFAIR to the beginner golfer (please see my post way back at the top of this long thread where I made this same point). We would have to remove not just grass in a bunker, but undergrowth along creeks that would capture a golf shot that might otherwise hang on the edge of the creek and allow a recovery. And then we would have to remove the creek itself.

How about a contour that kicks a ball into a group of trees near a green? If the ball ends up behind a tree, then the penalty will be severe for a shot that is fairly near the green. Do you then cut down all the trees? Not trying to be extreme here, but that is the consistent road of logic that we are going down.

The rub of the green is not a term, as I understand it, that came into usage because golf needed a phrase to address great golf shots. It is a term that addresses all the things that happen to golfers due to all the elements the golfer encounters that maybe do not seem fair. And that's the deal. I have heard all my life that golf is just like that. And for average golfers like me, the best thing I can do for myself is to accept that I did not play the hole well enough. Next time I will do better.

[Mike_Cirba]

Some of you please take a page from Mike Cirba. He is just as snow bound and still manages to act DECENT!

Tommy;

Actually, beneath this "DECENT" facade is a proverbial snow-bound, seething volcano of golfing frustration.  

Given the holiday season, and the Eagles recent successes, I'm temporarily placated and relatively emotionally placid and it shows in my onscreen demeanor.  

However, check back with me in sub-zero February and see how "nice" I am!!    

I'll be gunning for a starring role in "Grumpy Old Men IV" by that time.  

[TEPaul]

Just a point of clarification, again. "Rub of the green" has been used a great deal on this thread to describe unfair (or acceptable) golf architecture.

My understanding is that "rub of the green" is a term found in the definitions of the rules of golf and used in them that encorporates what happens when a ball in motion is accidentally deflected or stopped by an "outside agency". Until now I did not know that any "outside agency" included debatable golf architecture.

I think the term all of you might be looking for is the older and more general one--"That's the way the ball bounces"!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl Ingram,

You're right, John Low jumps to extremes and just doesn't get it.

So, if you consider the "ornamental bunker grass" at #12 a "FOE", then using the exact same logic, you would have to consider the water a "FOE". Two features, both within feet of the green, both presenting severe penalties.

And again I say, if you end up declaring the water in front of #12 UNFAIR, then you open up a can of worms that would cover the whole of the golf architecture world. We would be on a slippery slope where features like three inch rough would be UNFAIR to the beginner golfer (please see my post way back at the top of this long thread where I made this same point). We would have to remove not just grass in a bunker, but undergrowth along creeks that would capture a golf shot that might otherwise hang on the edge of the creek and allow a recovery. And then we would have to remove the creek itself.

How about a contour that kicks a ball into a group of trees near a green? If the ball ends up behind a tree, then the penalty will be severe for a shot that is fairly near the green. Do you then cut down all the trees? Not trying to be extreme here, but that is the consistent road of logic that we are going down.

John Low,

That is truely brilliant stuff.

As is your "consistent road of logic"

Who could debate any of those points ?

And Yes John, the water in front of # 12 is foe, as are the bunkers.  

Water....VERY BAD...... Bunkers......Bad.

I thought that Carl Ingram explained the concept of relativity to you.

If a feature is blind, it is perpetually blind, and, one may know that it lurks, but can only guess at it's precise location.

A Clayman,

When I played the hole, the top of the flagstick was the only visible element in play.

Tommy Naccarato,

If John Low is your new hero, you've sadly changed your definition of par, ala Willie Nelson.  

But, you get the last laugh, because you're out playing, and
we're here typing.

[Mike_Cirba]

If a feature is blind, it is perpetually blind, and, one may know that it lurks, but can only guess at it's precise location.

Patrick;

I'm not sure I understand the way you are defining the "blind bunkering vegetation" that you find so objectionable.

Are you saying that the bunker itself is blind?

Or, are you saying that the vegetation in the bunker, being generally "recessed", is blind?

In the case of the first one, golfers throughout the centuries have found unpleasant "surprises" in blind bunkers at TOC.  Yet, after careful playing and study, most of the greatest of them have figured out where they are and generally how to avoid them.  Would you consider their presence and continued existence evidence of "bad architecture" at the home of golf?

In the case of the second, a visible bunker with "blind" vegetation, I'm not sure how that really matters so much, especially after the first playing (presumably, at that point and henceforth, one KNOWS it is there).  

Are you saying that you've become so laser-accurate that you need to see the inner bowels of the bunker so you know precisely where to miss it in there.  Are you saying that once you can "see it all", your slightly misplayed shot can then more easily find "sand" and purposefully avoid those nasty native grasses?    

If so, perhaps the professional's modern blasphemously pleading statement of "get in the bunker" needs some revision.  I propose, "get in the flat, sandy part of that visible, but unfair bunker and stay the Hell out of those ornamental plantings!"    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I try, at all times, to hit my approach shots that may find a bunker, such that they come to rest at the beginning of the upslope of the sand in the bunker, never coming too close to the face of the bunker.  I do this by releasing my grip pressure on the third finger of my left hand and the ring finger of my right hand.  But, the key, is not to do so simultaneously.

I object to hidden dense growth within a bunker because it is a double hazzard, one that could not be prepared for prior to the execution of the approach shot.

The risk/reward that I choose in executing my approach shot, didn't contemplate not having a swing at my ball, or worse yet, not finding my ball.

I object to this in the same way that I object to trees planted in front of bunkers, creating a double hazard.

A good example of this is Mountain Ridge Golf Club, a wonderful Donald Ross course in NJ.  Years ago, a green chairman planted a row of pines/evergreens between two sets of stacked fairway bunkers on a great, reachable par 5, #6.
On the tee it was difficult to tell where the trees were.
Those hitting into the bunker could not advance the ball forward, no matter where their ball ended up.  Now, you tell me, was that Ross's intent, or did some green chairman create an unfair (yes, I hate that word too, but it does apply)
situation because he resented better players who could hit into that bunker and still make birdie or par.

Fortunately, Ron Prichard removed them as part of his restoration project.

The same principle applies to a hidden or visible greenside bunker with hidden islands of growth inside them.
Hitting into them shouldn't result in a lost ball penalty, or even an unplayable lie.

You know from previous posts and conversations, that I am on the record as advocating the raking of bunkers no more than once a month or after storms, so I don't have a problem with adverse or penal conditions, but I think that double penalties, especially excessive ones are the result of bad architecture, and as such I think that they should be eliminated.

But, that's just my opinion, and TEPaul is still wrong.

[TEPaul]

Pat just wrote:

"I try, at all times, to hit my approach shots that may find a bunker, such that they come to rest at the beginning of the upslope of the sand in the bunker, never coming too close to the face of the bunker.  I do this by releasing my grip pressure on the third finger of my left hand and the ring finger of my right hand.  But, the key, is not to do so simultaneously."

Pat:

Everyone who reads this site knows you're in total "TILT" and your brain is completely fried! Until now, however, many did not understand why. Thanks so much for those thoughts on how you play golf, now we all know why your brain is fried!

My recommendation would be to lie down for a few weeks and apply really cold ice packs continuously to each side of your head!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I fear that may be the problem, that's all I've been doing for the last two weeks.

Did I say my ring finger ?  I meant my thumb.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Thanks for your good natured and clear answer.  

I guess we just disagree that vegetation in a bunker is a "double hazard", as you contend.  I see the bunker as "hazard", irrespective of what's in there or not, raked or not, consistent sand or not, 3 foot tall demonic gnomes or not.  If it's within the bunker...within a "hazard", then I believe all's fair and all bets are off, so to speak.  

The purpose of the player is to avoid hazards, period.  The placements of those hazards is the architect's tool and a big part of creating strategy.  

I think that's clearly different from trees outside of hazards that interfere or block recovery, which is not what I'd call a "double hazard" either.  I object to that one simply because it's stupid, inartistic, redundant, insipid, and lazy.  

[Jim Sweeney]

Certainly, bunkers are hazards and golfers are not guarenteed the opportuny to advance the ball from them. In that regard there is no objction to grasses within the boundry of a bunker. However, it would be inadviseably to introduce grasses, ornamental or otherwise, into  very deep or otherwise already penal bunkers. On the other hand, grasses might be effective in large, flat bunkers such as on the second hole at Crooked Stick, for both strategic and aesthetic purposes.

Bunkers positioned near out of bounds, water hazards, or thick woods/brush should probably not have such additions because the player may be denied reasonable relief under the rules. In these situations, if the player could not play the ball, his only options might be to drop in the bunker, perhaps creating a buried lie, or to return to the spot from which he played his previous shot. He, of course, incurs a penalty shot. Thus he might be doubly penalized because of a thoughtlessly placed ornament.