Ornamental Bunker Grass, friend or foe

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

If I hit it into adjacent water I take a simple one shot penalty and drop it next to the green, and in most instances, the water was a known factor, and the hole designed accordingly.

Mike Cirba,

Let me try to address each picture.

# 1  Benign, not a factor

# 2  Excessive, due to their number and location.
       Earlier photos of this course will show you that the backs
       of many bunkers contained the Yucca, but rarely did you
       see it in concentrated and in dense clumps as picture
       here.
       I suspect that these plantings are fairly recent.  I can
       tell you, they weren't like this circa 1987.

# 3  Benign, almost looks like a seperating tongue

# 4  I think this represents an extremely penal situation,
       where a lost ball can result, or worse yet, one attempts
       to extracate their ball and leaves the green with
       telephone numbers.  I submit that if this wasn't a course
       designed by a favorite of the site's, (mine too) that this
       feature, and its proximity to the lines of play would get
       more criticism, and I question placing such a difficulty
       feature so close to the focal point of the hole.

# 5  Easy

# 6  Hardly an impediment.

If, as you and others seem to think, that these features are just the rub of the green, why not put them on the green or around the immediate border of the green ?

As Rich Goodale hinted, why not just put clowns and windmills.

[ForkaB]

Mike

As it is the holiday season, ask and ye shall receive!  Even though I might be arrested by the GCA thought police for practicing photographic interpretation without a license, here it goes.

#6--that looks pretty natural.  Not sure how long that unkempt look will last, however, unless you spend a lot on detailed maintenance....
#5--those edges (fescue?) look about as natural as palm trees in Scotland (actually there is a palm tree about 1/2 mile form my house.  It doesn't look natural either...)
#4--the desert scrubland looks natural, but where did the bunker come from?  Not natural at all.  Perhaps Burpee's has a "sand" line of seeds now.....
#3--looks like a wooly mammoth has chosen to hibernate in the middle bunker.  Perhaps this was a Burpee genetic experiment that went horribly wrong.
#2--the only place that plants as diverse as those might grow together is near a toxic waste site.  Possibly the State of .............
#1--looks like the Red Tide has gone inland, or somebody ripped up a perfectly good heather bed in order to build a bunker around it.  If you want penal, try playing out of heather.  Make the whole bunker out of it.

As for #18 Muirfield, you could chop the island bunker in half and make the "outer" half closely cropped turf that would either gather balls into the (now) narrow bunker, or require a delicate pitch (or heroic flop shot) off hardpan to get close to a right pin.  I think it would be as good, but it won't happen, of course.

Merry Christmas Eve Eve

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick & Rich;

Thanks for answering my questions, and your answers were forthcoming, as usual.  And, a Merry Christmas Eve Eve to both of you, as well.  

Now, down to business..

Patrick; Couldn't you take an unplayable in the bunker if stroke play disaster was your concern?

Just to summarize;

Pic #1 - Patrick found the bunker "benign", while Rich thought it looked as natural as the red plague visiting sand and suggested it should all be heather to achieve true penality.  Having played from there, I'd say that it's hardly benign because those grasses often get quite (too?) long and thick, and the shapes could be a bit more random in geometry.

Pic #2 - Patrick called the planting "excessive" and probably recent, while Rich believes that such a hybrid of plants might only be found near a toxic waste site.  I can assure Rich that those diverse plants are indeed indigenous (he probably won't be moving there any time soon), although they do present an intractable problem should one be so unfortunate to get into the Yucca.  

Pic #3 - Once again Patrick sees the planting as "benign", but Rich thinks it looks like a wooly mammoth.  I'm not sure having never played there, but it looks pretty difficult and thick.

Pic #4 - Patrick believes that bunker is "extremely penal", which Rich admires its naturalness while wondering why the need for sand at all.  I would agree with the natural look, and also believe Patrick is right that one might end up in a tough situation in that bunker.  I'd also ask whether or not a bunker (hazard) SHOULD be penal, especially when there's plenty of bail out room to the left?

Pic #5 - Patrick thinks it looks "easy", while Rich compares the aesthetic to a palm tree in Scotland.  Interestingly, Tom Paul earlier in this thread mentioned that the planting in the bunker here are among the fiercest he's seen and I would tend to agree (although it looks cut pretty short here).

Pic #6 - Patrick calls the plantings "hardly an impediment" and Rich is concerned regarding the maintenance issues.  Interestingly, many bunkers of this type are found in the surrounding area, NOT on golf courses.  I don't really agree with either opinion.

One other thing that I'd ask you, Patrick.  Very early pictures of NGLA in George Bahto's book show grass plantings within bunkers...something like Scotch Broom, or love grass, which is evident on 9, 17, and others.  Would you think that CB Macdonald would have considered them "unfair"?    

[John L. Low]

Pat,

If you hit in the water on #15 at Augusta, would you be able to drop "next to the green"? Don't you have to keep the point at which you cross the hazard line between you and the hole? I suppose you can imagine a situation where the pond is behind the green to make that work. But it seems like we are reaching a little. Plus, a bunker with sand and unplayable lies is still as a matter of probability more "playable" than a pond.

If an architect wants to encircle a green with a tangled mess, I have no problem with that. From my understanding, that is probably close to what some of the very first greens looked like. That is certainly what I encounted when I first started hitting golf balls in a pasture as a youth. Yes, the average golfer would not want to play a bunch of island greens all the time, but it would still be the rub of the green. Nice extremely extreme example though.

By the way, why do you conveniently say that in most cases the water is a known feature and the hole designed accordingly and not make the same ASSUMPTION about the grass plagued hazard? If the architect tells you that he/she designed a visable hazard around the known grass plagued hazard, would that suffice to make it more playable?

As for clowns and windmills, I hope I am lucky enough one day to make it over to Scotland to play courses covered in gorse (I don't know what gorse is personally, but I saw Tom Lehman extricate himself from it on tv the year he won the Open). Gorse seems to be the closest thing to a clown or a windmill as far as I can tell from your outline of this playability problem.

[Mike_Cirba]

Finally, what say ye about these plantings in sand?

[brad_miller]

Mike, great photos, yes those yucca's can mutate a golf hole

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I can show you examples where the "unplayable lie" may not be as kind as you may think.  In addition, many golfers falsely think that they can extracate a golf ball from a difficult lie.  
I myself, have been very stupid, on more than a few occassions of trying to attempt to pull off a heroic shot, resulting in a rude awakening, and an abundance of strokes
Water, on the other hand, is cut and dry, or wet if you prefer.

I submit that the last few photos are more the product of poor maintainance, than intentional plantings.  One only has to go back a few years to see pictures of the same holes without the gnarly underbrush.

With respect to NGLA, # 17 has had hairplugs on top of the waste or mound bunker fronting the green by forty or so yards, but that bunker is convex, not concave, and elevated, not sunken.  Neither their location or composition presents a material problem to the golfer.

The same applies to # 9.

I suspect that they are decorative rather than functional, especially since it would take a 300+ yard drive to reach them.

John Low,

Depends upon where you hit your ball in the water on # 15.

In addition, normally, you're hitting an L-S-Wedge into that green and the water is as noticeable a hazard as you're ever going to find.

Most holes with water adjacent to the green don't hide the water such that the golfer has no clue as to its presence.
The same is not generally true of bunkers, many are hidden.

Water is usually presented on a given side of a green.
Rare is the occassion when the green is surrounded by water like the 17th at TPC.  Many, if not most greens lie within an group of bunkers.

With gnarly grass/underbrush on the FLOOR of a SUNKEN bunker, those islands are usually invisible to the golfer.
Thus the architect has deprived the golfer of a tactical signal to the eye, warning him of such, because generally, the penalty for failure isn't as severe as hitting into water.
But, that changes with the addition of severe undergrowth.
And, even the golfer who has played the course a hundred times would be hard pressed to know the exact and relative location of the islands of underbrush within the bunker from his vantage point off the tee.

Gorse has nothing to do with this.  I doubt you'll find much gorse in the middle of any bunkers in Scotland, except perhaps the rough island on the 10th at Turnberry.

[John L. Low]

Pat,

You've got me scratching my head. I think this thread, once a cleanly edged bunker has itself become a gnarly bunker. I reread the opening post you made and do not see all this stuff about golfers having to pinpoint hazardous materials in bunkers, including bunkers they have seen 100 times. What looked like an interesting question now seems to include clowns and windmills and thickets in the middle of greens. You show some support for water because it is "usually" visable to the golfer to show its "presence". I assume that the pond must be visable in total or it too is unfair. I assume the golfer must be able to see, from anywhere on the fairway, the complete shoreline of the pond to know its exact and relative location. What is more is that I assume you would want every contour of the ground that would kick or otherwise drain a ball into a pond or lake to be visable to the golfer also. You don't seem to be consistent in your ASSUMPTIONS about these bunkers versus water hazards. Are water hazards that are totally or partially hidden even to golfers who have played a hole 100 times unfair?

I asked you way back when if you could provide any examples of specific holes that had to be played in a specific way. But you ignored that request, unless I missed something (maybe I missed your response).  Do you have any examples of all of these hidden greenside bunkers whose locations continue to confound golfers after dozens of attempts? Otherwise I don't see where this is going. In fact, my belief in the rub of the green is only getting stronger as this thread goes on because I haven't seen an example yet that would lead me to change my mind in the slightest. It would be interesting to see an example of what you are getting at.

The example of ornamental grass in the middle of a green sounds like a new thread to me, not something entailed in this thread at all. In case you start that thread, the answer on my end is no, I don't think grass is by definition mutually exclusive with a green, no more than the bunker in the green at Riviera. But your greenskeeper better be prepared for golfers taking divots in his or her green if you go that route. If you ask if a green (with gnarly, randomly spaced brush bearing thorns that not only pop mower tires but also scratch the backsides of golfers lining up their putts, putts they cannot make unless the maintenance crew topiaries them into clowns and windmills so that there is an avenue to putt through) is unfair, then yes it is unfair. It is not in the spirit of what a golf green is. A golf green is not to my understanding a "hazard", though my putting seems to indicate otherwise.  

[ForkaB]

John Low

If you are the sort of person who relaly looks forward to playing out of gorse, well.........you've come to the right website!

In fact, gorse is probably why the whole "unplayable lie" rule arose in the first place.  You really cannot play out of gorse except in the most rare and/or sadomasochistic situations.   Pat, I do not think there is gorse in the midle of the fairway bunker on the 10th at Turnberry.

Mike

Do the police know that you are keeping files of such pictures on your computer?

More seriously, one thing that strikes me is how in just about all your pictures the "plantings" seem to be placed to affect the ball which is severely off-line rather than one which narrowly misses the desired target.  In this sense, they penalize the bad player much more than the good one, who will rarely get into any of the positions that you document.  Following up on this, I also note that (particularly in the last tranche of pictures) many of the bunkers are in fact not greenside, but ones separating fairways.  In those cases, one might argue that clearing out most of the scrubland to make islands of sand actually makes the hole easier and less visually intimidating.  Compare, for example the back tee at the 11th at Troon.  A 220 yard carry over gorse.  One could foozle forever from that tee and never make any progress.

[TEPaul]

Regarding the first photo in the last set---when the vegetation within that bunker is in bloom in the spring it's one of the most beautiful sights I've ever seen in golf--also one of the most naturally placed bunker I've ever seen. As for the "playability", visibility, fairness or whatever else is being discussed here, well, I don't want to even get into that. For about 90 years now golfer after golfer has just been dealing with it, hitting one creative and imaginative recovery shot after another which is just part of what makes the course so interesting. And, by the way, losing your ball on that course is amazingly rare!

[ChipOat]

Mike:

Regarding your last set of pictures, I've spent more time in those waste areas on every single hole there than I'd like to admit.  Never lost a ball or taken an Unplayable from any grassy clumps therein.

Don't know if they keep them trimmed or not (so many - how can they?) but hitting into the stuff seems appropriately penal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

The island in the middle of # 10 at Turnberry is rough, not gorse, I didn't mean to equate them.

John Low,

Never once did I indicate that a shore line or pond must be entirely visible, those are your assumptions and conclusions, not mine.

You also seem to be having a degree of difficulty in understanding the concept of blindness, hazards and relativity.

Almost every hole has a prefered line of play, a specific route/s to the hole, but to be extremely specific, let's start with # 17 at TPC.  For less extreme examples, # 16 at ANGC, # 4 at NGLA, # 8 at NGLA, # 14 at NGLA, # 1 at GCGC, # 16 at GCGC.

As to the concept of hidden bunkers, with hidden islands of undergrowth in them, try to equate the concept to hidden bunkers with random casual water in them, and perhaps you'll be able to understand the situation I'm referencing.

Why should you be afforded relief from one, and penalized with the other, when they are effectively identical ?

[Dan Kelly]

Mike --

I know that you are concerned that BIAS (or, more distressingly and counterproductively, ACCUSATIONS of BIAS) will enter into the discussion if the facts (who, what, where, when, why, how) are included with the pictures.

But I, for one, would really appreciate knowing where these bunkers are, and who built them, and when, and why, and how.

We can deal with those ACCUSATIONS of BIAS by simply ignoring them -- can't we?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The difference in Rich's comments and mine is that I indicated in the initial post that I would prefer to address the playability issue, choosing to defer the aesthetics issue.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan Kelly;

Sure!  I think we've had enough objective debate so I'll be happy to identify them.

Pic 1 - Inniscrone - Gil Hanse
Pic 2 - Prairie Dunes - Perry Maxwell
Pic 3 - Kingsley Club - Mike DeVries
Pic 4 - Rustic Canyon - Gil Hanse
Pic 5 - Galloway National - Tom Fazio
Pic 6 - Sand Hills - Coore & Crenshaw

The last 5 pictures are all of Pine Valley.  

Hope you enjoyed!  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Playability issue?? What are you talking?

Here's what you need to know about the "playability issue" in any of those bunkers.

You hit your ball, go find it, hit it again if you find it, and continue doing so until you remove it from the hole. If there's anything that confuses you about that along the way, just consult the rule book--it'll explain how to proceed!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What if your ball just misses the pin and gently, ever so slowly, rolls over the green, into a bunker with an island of undergrowth in it, and you can't find your ball after taking your alloted five minutes.

Why should your ball coming to rest in casual water in the same bunker be treated differently ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick;

Before I launching into your question and the far more Herculean task of getting you to understand the answer, may I first ask you a question?

Have you ever heard of the fundamental principle in golf embodied in a small book explaining the principles behind the rules of golf which says; "Like situations shall be treated alike"?

If you haven't or you're not familiar with it, I'll do you a huge favor and bring the book with me on Jan 11 and let you look at it--but only if, before you do look at it, you sign an affadavit for me admitting that only 2% of what you say on here could possibly be true or correct!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Excuse me, but it appears I failed to notice that the first paragraph in your last post may actually be a question (pssst, you forgot the question (?) mark).

The answer to that question is actually remarkably simple and one most golfers are aware of.

The answer to the first question is----tough shit!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The real answer may be BAD ARCHITECTURE.

And, with Tony Soprano's foursome behind you, and upset, as you dilly dally, looking for your ball in that island clump of undergrowth in the bunker just over the green, I can see the beads of sweat forming on your brow, and I can hear your mutterings and prayers, "what stupid idiot put these things so close to the lines of play", AND, "I can't wait to show those guys behind me, this book, that will explain everything to them, I know they'll understand".

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci replies;

"TEPaul,

The real answer may be BAD ARCHITECTURE.

And, with Tony Soprano's foursome behind you, and upset, as you dilly dally, looking for your ball in that island clump of undergrowth in the bunker just over the green, I can see the beads of sweat forming on your brow, and I can hear your mutterings and prayers, "what stupid idiot put these things so close to the lines of play", AND, "I can't wait to show those guys behind me, this book, that will explain everything to them, I know they'll understand"."  

Patrick:

I just knew this would be a Herculean task!

You should recognize another useful golf and golf rule mechanism--the difference in meaning between the words "MAY" as opposed to "SHALL" (or "WILL", if you like).

You said;

"The real answer 'may' be BAD ARCHITECTURE!

That's not the correct answer. The correct answer is mine;

(The answer "SHALL" be)---tough shit!"

As for me sweating looking for my ball in thick vegetation in a greenside bunker while Tony Soprano's foursome is behind me breathing down my neck. Nothing of the kind!

You can dilly dally, sweat and hand them the rule book if you want but it'd be better to.....

Let me introduce you to another very interesting but apparently little know concept in golf, Pat.

It sounds like this;

"Hey Tony, why don't you and your boys just come on through?"

Sometimes a visible wave can accomplish the same effect! Makes sweating, handing off and explaining rule books  unnecessary too--while you dilly dally looking for your ball in your "like situations shall be treated alike" tough shit situation!
  
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm afraid that you've missed the point again.

Tony Soprano and friends won't be playing through.

They have a keen interest in that little island of undergrowth in the middle of the bunker.  Seems that one of their former competitors is now residing underneath it,  courtesy of a few nine irons to the head, and your diligent search is annoying and disturbing them.  They won't be satisfied until you move on, and do so quickly.  
Forgetabout your five minutes, your time is up.

[TEPaul]

Ok, Pat, that's no problem either:

It can be:

"Hey Tony, you and your boys play through if you want, or if you'd prefer take my ball and this whole damn island of scubby vegetation it might be in, no problem at all. Matter of fact I'm an architectural expert analyst type and I actually understand how this course can be a reversible course so I'll be on my way in the direction you just came from, Mr Soprano. Oh, by the way, Tone, did you hear about this guy Pat Mucci--he lives up your way somewhere, and he's been  complaining all over the Internet about these kinds of heavily vegetated islands in all the bunkers all over this golf course? He's even been analyzing photos of many of them and making remarks like they shouldn't be there, so if you have any interest at all in these highly vegetated bunker islands maybe you should go have one of your special meetings with this guy Patrick Mucci!"

[John L. Low]

Pat,

Are any of the holes you listed part of the problem that you are trying to outline here? Any hidden, gnarly bunkers on them that you would rather see removed? If not, and given that you are not even coming close to explaining to me why a partially hidden pond is different than a partially hidden briar patch in terms of unfairness, I will just say Happy Holidays and head on to another thread.

May the new year bring you no awkward bounces,  no spike marks in your line,  no mud sticking to your ball, a thousand approach shots that come close to the pin but have the proper spin to stay next to the flag instead of going over the green into a bunker or pond or waste area,  square grooves if you need them to make those perfect, as you say above 'heroic" approach shots,  the chance to play Augusta and a bit of great luck in which you hit into the creek at #13 but end up on one of the random, totally unvisable patches of grass that allows a recovery shot (or alternately, that Hootie takes that creek out of play because it has an unseen, uneven water line that cannot be predicted by the golfer about to plunk his ball into it),  only helping winds whether they be at your back, in your face or from any angle,  no moisture on the course so that your feet do not slip at contact and your ball rolls true unimpeded by any elements on the green,  perfectly even teeing grounds,  helping bunkers only to catch a mis-hit and save it from a worse fate,  no tee shots that land in a previous divot (repaired or otherwise),  and may you play with golf balls that are actually round. And finally, may the Good Dr. return so that you can tell him of all the things that make the game of golf unfair and how the rub of the green is a bunch of, as TEPaul says, "tough s&$%".

But beware Pat, for here is what I believe Dr MacKenzie will say in reply:

"The difficulties that make a hole really interesting are usually those in which a great advantage can be gained in successfully accomplishing heroic carries over hazards of an impressive appearance, or in taking great risks in placing a shot so as to gain a big advantage for the next.

Successfully carrying or skirting a bunker of an alarming or impressive appearance is always a source of satisfaction to the golfer, and yet it is hazards of this description which so often give rise to criticism by the unsuccessful player. At first sight he looks upon it as grossly unfair that, of two shots within a few inches of each other, the one should be hopelessly buried in a bunker and the other should be in an ideal position.

However, on further consideration he will realize that, as in dog-legged holes, this is the chief characteristic of all good holes." page 93-94, GOLF ARCHITECTURE, MacKenzie.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

Thanks,

I've been able to successfully navigate the vicissitudes of golf courses for almost six decades, so I have a little experience with the rub of the green, and play my ball, from where ever it comes to rest.  But, certain features are gimmickie.

Your MacKenzie quote is interesting and telling.
You will note that he repeatedly uses the term,
"impressive appearance" connoting visibility.

You wouldn't know if it was a heroic carry if you couldn't see it and make the choice to attempt the shot, would you ?
You wouldn't play a shot to skirt a bunker if you didn't know it was there, either, would you ?

Thick islands of vegetation in the middle of bunkers, especially hidden bunkers aren't natural, they're created by man, as are almost all non-seaside bunkers.

And when, for ornamental purposes, a dense undergrowth is introduced into the bowels of these bunkers, I feel it is a double penalty, not much different than planting a tree at the green end of a fairway bunker.  Why is it that you don't see many of them ?  Because that would be too obvious.

I submit, that on all but a few courses, it's a fad, or eye candy.

Could you also name me some greens with undetectable water adjacent to their putting surfaces that have blind approaches ?

Have you played the 17th at Prestwick and the 5th at Old Marsh ?