Ornamental Bunker Grass, friend or foe

[John L. Low]

Pat,

Florida has a lot of courses with lakes that are either totally or partially hidden from the golfer by the mounds or contours of the course and depending upon where the golfer is located in attempting his/her shot. That's what you get on very flat courses where all the ground movement is upward from a flat plane--it blocks your view. But really, you should be giving us examples of your grassy bunker in my opinion.

I figured you would go for the word "appearance" and skip over the rest of the quote. Too bad. Yes, I would know it was a heroic carry or if I was skirting the bunker by the second time I had played the hole (accept on those rare occasions when my regular foursome makes me play blindfolded, those scoundrels). Actually, I could also figure it out by simply looking at the scorecard or walking up and taking a preview of what awaits--but let's say, to keep your extreme case extreme that there is no scorecard, and that I am not able to ask anyone in my group or a caddie what the hole is and that I am not allowed to walk forward at all to see what shot awaits me. (Yes, you are correct, these same restrictions will not allow me to see some of the back contours of many greens either, but I trust someone will take those out in every case as they might mistakenly kick a good approach shot away from the flag without my having the benefit of surveying their exact and relative location.)

You can't get past this imaginary, horrible scenario where you can imagine but not give examples of (unless Prestwick and Olf Marsh are your examples, are they?) a briar patch that would freighten even a rabbit being chased by a fox. For a beginner, the second cut of rough looks just as horrible at times. Do we get rid of deep rough because a lot of golfers get frustrated having hit it there and pick up to avoid a real score and the bestowing of an unwanted nickname from Tony Soprano?

In the end, you succumb and call it eye-candy. "I submit that on all but a few courses, it's a fad. Or eye candy." Well, it may be or it may not be. For us to know you would have to do two things--give concrete examples and provide the design intent of the architect relative to the AESTHETICS of the grass. Yes, you would have to know if the architect was following a fad or trying to create eye-candy to know why the grass was placed there. You could then be sure that the architect absolutely did not want the grass to be in play--you know, seen but not heard. But there you have taken this thread into the realm of aesthetics. You did not want to do that originally. Maybe Pat that is the only logical place for this thread to go. There, the rub of the green can be set aside somewhat and totally subjective opinion rules the day.

By the way, the rest of that quote is most telling Pat and it touches upon what every golfer must decide for himself or herself--am I going to be the kind of golfer that stops and whines and crys "unfair" when I find my ball "hopelessly buried" in a bunker or am I going to play on in the grand tradition of the game of golf. You decide for yourself and I will decide for myself. I must assume, for lack of anything at all that would weaken my position in the slightest on the concept of "rub of the green", that we will have to agree to disagree. If however, you can make your case well enough, I trust there will one day be a rule change to treat those thickets like the sticky wickets you see them as. At that point, I will concede to the Rules of Golf their abiding authority, just as I do now.

Until then, see you on the next thread about bunkers and eye-candy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

Mike Cirba's 4th picture depicts the type of difficulty that can be found within a bunker that contains islands of gnarly stuff.

I have no problem with buried lies, bad breaks, etc.,etc..
But, when an inordinately penal feature/hazard is placed so close to the putting surface, and it's not discernable for the incoming shot, I question its architectural merits.  
And, I question its purpose.

Rare, is the occassion in Florida, when you don't know that water is directly adjacent to the green.  If you could cite just five such examples, it would be helpful.  I've played a few courses in Florida and have never run across this feature, but perhaps some of the courses I haven't played employ it.

One of the biggest complaints that I have heard about bunkers is when nearby tree branches intrude into them, inhibiting ones swing or forward flight of the ball.  Most of these trees were planted long after the golf course and bunkers were put there, but now, as the trees have grown, the are substantive, non-intended obstacles.

An island of underbrush creates similar problems.  
Both a swing and/or the flight of the ball can be inpeded or prevented.  And, this usually happens very close to the ultimate target, the green and cup.

When you consider that some of these bunkers are hidden, and that the underbrush is hidden, I think the feature has been taken to an extreme.

Some may have fallen in love with the rough look, but from a playability point of view, I think it is excessive.

Even # 17 at Prestwick and # 5 at Old Marsh have a stone on the top of the fronting hill, serving as a directional marker to the pin.  # 5 at Old Marsh is Pete Dye's tribute to
# 17 at Prestwick.

A related issue is, have these islands been allowed to grow out of control, far beyond their intended usage, due to maintainance problems, budgets, or in-accessibility ?

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci wrote:

"When you consider that some of these bunkers are hidden, and that the underbrush is hidden, I think the feature has been taken to an extreme.

Some may have fallen in love with the rough look, but from a playability point of view, I think it is excessive."

Pat:

Having read parts of this thread, I'd say the way I feel about this kind of thing is probably the way it's always been in golf and golf architecture--that is, there's necessarily a lot of difference in it and that to me is a good thing.

What would be excessive at some course in Florida may not be excessive at Pine Valley, for instance. Sort of like at the clothing store--one size does not fit all!

[brad_miller]

Do some that have decided they don't like "certain vegitation" IN bunkers around greens feel the same way for fairway bunkers? What about the ice plant that is or was found around many of the greens at CPC and Spyglass? From memory the 1st at CPC and 4th at SG as examples, pretty hard to hit out of it, and it only is just off the green.

[John L. Low]

Pat,
Thanks for the example. May I quote what you said when I gave you several examples?

"In each case the water (insert gnarly bunker in Pat's example here in place of "water") is clearly visable, and in each case, the water (insert same gnarly bunker here in place of "water") can easily be taken out of play."

Why not treat the bunker with the same ASSUMPTIONS as the water?

The problem with your position is that is does not treat features consistently. You talk about playability and hidden features, but you don't seem to have a problem with hidden features across the board. As an example, the time I played NGLA, I hit what I thought was a great approach into #8 only to have to stand there and watch my shot hit several feet onto the green and begin to slowly roll back into the front greenside bunker. I couldn't hit a ball that backed up to save my life, but the false front on the green got me and took what seemed like a great shot and deposited into the bunker. I was surprised until I walked up to the green and realized that what I thought I saw in the fairway was not what was there at all. The green, very shallow looking from the fairway because it is elevated, was actually much deeper than I could see. I could have hit my approach much deeper and avoided the bunker if I had walked up to the green and examined what was waiting for me--in other words, taken the hidden features out of hiding. My reaction wasn't that the green was "unfair". My reaction was just the opposite. I thought to myself, "They got me with a false front. But I will get them next time now that I know. This must be the kind of thing that makes everyone rave about NGLA." Is a false front gimmicke? Maybe. False fronts are what they are because they create difficulty for the golfer from a visual or perspective standpoint. Architects are lauded on this website for employing such strategic ideas. Is it unfair? It just depends on your perspective. Regardless, the architects must have decided to employ that feature on #8 for their purposes and I don't hear anyone complaining about false fronts. It was not, I trust, a "natural" feature until MacDonald built it.

So what would you do to #8? It jumped up and bit me just like the hidden thickets you lament. (And I hit a beautiful 9 iron in there too. Darn shame to waste that shot.) Is it time to rebuild that green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

There is a huge difference between hidden bunkers with hidden islands of underbrush within them and visible water.

You never provided the five examples of greens with water directly adjacent to them which had blind shots into them.

The 8th at NGLA is a terrible analogy, and you have defamed one of my favorite par 4's in all of golf

The 8th green site at NGLA is incredibly visible, boldly sitting up in front of you, unobstructed.  In terms of providing targeting for the golfer, the only thing missing are giant neon arrows pointing to the green.  I don't know that I would categorize the front of the green as a false front, but I understand its configuration and the signal sent to the eye.

Why were you trying to squeeze the ball in tight with such a dire consequence if you came up short ?  Didn't you see the foursome in front of you walk off that green to the 9th tee ?  
Poor course management John, shame on you.

Again, I think you've chosen a very poor analogy, and would appreciate it if you never use the 8th hole as an example of anything other than a sensational hole, with multiple challenges and visuals.  That hole is strategy and visuals galore.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think John Low gave a wonderful example with the false front on #8 NGLA. His basic point is that someone who complains about any type of feature should be a bit more consistent across the board than you appear to be. His point too is once bitten by something blind or unknown the first time shouldn't happen to that golfer again other than making a mistake (Tommy Armour's remark!).

There're blind bunkers with vegetation in them all over Pine Valley and on courses all over the world and on many very good golf courses. Maybe they aren't good, for obvious reasons, on resort or public courses that get a lot of first and one time play but it doesn't mean these things don't belong in architecture.

You'll probably hold to your point on this subject anyway but clearly many don't agree with your position, including me.

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick- I can understanding your questioning architectural merit and/or purpose but I do worry about the subjectivity of the term inordinately penal.

As I see it the blind gnarlies are only blind once. After that one should know not to hit it there and if on one's virgin trip you end up in there, it's destiny/carma/justice...golf.


Brad- Ice plant is rarely inextricable from, even virgins with a little knowledge of an explosion shot have made wonderful recoveries.


Happy and Merry

[John L. Low]

My, my Pat. Defamed? Are you perhaps a bit defensive here? Maybe overreacting? Does anyone else here read what I wrote about #8 at NGLA and feel that I defamed that hole? I simply pointed out that the false front did its job and got me good. I also said that I would get it next time now that I know. Interesting. NGLA must be one of your favorites--you treat it like it cannot be discussed except under your terms, even if my terms are positive. You probably do not want to discuss the totally BLIND approach shot I had to hit into #3 at NGLA, or the really deep right greenside bunker that I hit into on #7 when my second shot went skidding quickly across the firm and fast green approach into something I did not realize was there. Boy was that a deep bunker for a very shallow green from that angle. Needless to say, I hit my third shot over into the pot bunkeron the left side of the green. Talk about deep and penal and not visable to the golfer on his/her approach shot. Nobody had any idea that the bunkers were so deep. That pot bunker is a toughie. One of my partners had to just pick up his ball after five shots in there. It only took me two shots to get out. But we are not great golfers. What do you think of a pot bunker within a few feet of the green that is not visable from everywhere in the fairway and the depth of which is beyond the norm for greenside bunkers?

At any rate, since you sort of conveniently ignored the point of my quoting your own words, I will trust that you don't want to address the inconsistency of your ASSUMPTIONS on visable water/visable bunkers and hidden water/hidden bunkers. I guess the example (Mike's fourth photo) you gave doesn't get us anywhere because it clearly shows to me at least that you can avoid the bunker on that hole in the same manner you can avoid the water/cattails/sand hazard on #14 at NGLA (referencing you again here). Comparing hidden features to visable features doesn't address the issue Pat. Let's just be consistent, okay? Otherwise, I have, as Archie Bunker used to say, "just two words for you"--Rub of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I wouldn't classify the 8th green at NGLA as having a false front.  True false fronts would be the 6th, and 10th greens at Hollywood, and perhaps the 5th and 14th greens at ANGC.

The 8th green at NGLA is fortress like with the consequences of near misses quite obvious from the tee shot, no matter where it is.

A clayman and TEPaul,

Tommy Armour's reference to only blind once is cute but inaccurate.  Perhaps if you play the 17th at Prestwick or the
5th at Old Marsh often enough you'll come to understand that Blind is Blind, and one can only gestimate locations from a blind observation point, especially when that point continually shifts.

John Low,

I was kidding about "defamed", chiding you  for using the 8th green as example of a hidden feature, one in fact that you should have observed on the greens at # 1,# 4, # 6, # 12 and # 7, before arriving at your second shot on # 8.

You continue to make assumptions, and your assumptions are flawed, hence your conclusions are flawed.

I've asked you to cite the examples of greens with water immediately adjacent to them, that have blind incoming shots, that you've said existed, and so far you've failed to list one.

That, and that alone should provide the litmus test to prove my theory and negate yours.

There is a reason you can't cite five examples, it's because they are rare or non-existent, because.......
it's bad architecture, bad golf strategy, and bad golf.

It would be absurd to treat two uniquely different features the same.  They aren't interchangeable.  Another flawed assumption.  

I have been consistent, I'm afraid that you just don't understand my positon even though you indicate that you disagree with it.  

You never answered my question relative to casual water in a hidden greenside bunker and an island of underbrush in the same bunker. (TEPaul, when I ask an individual a specific question, let them answer for themselves.  I see you frantically waving your hand, but I'll call on you later)

Your comparison of hidden bunkers incorporating hidden islands of underbrush in them, on blind or non-blind holes, to the approach to the 8th green is one of the wildest and strangest attempts to provide support for a position that I've ever encountered.  The key to how wrong and illogical it is, is that TEPaul agrees with you.
That should tell you immediately that you're premise, logic and conclusions are wrong.  The man has obviously had too much egg nog in the last day or two.

You bring up two holes that support my position.
# 3 and # 7 at NGLA.

You should know at the start that NGLA is my favorite golf course.  Some find it gimmickie, but I love everything about it.
Imagine if you will, water either left, right or short of the
3rd green, and water behind the 7th green.  Substituting water for bunkers, as you suggested earlier would substantially alter the playability and evaluation of both holes.
The value of the hole, and strategy would be diminished.

Planting five islands of dense underbrush in the rear greenside bunker at # 7 would make it gimmickie.  And don't tell me that from 250 yards out, to 50 yards out, even after playing the hole 50 times, that you would be able to pinpoint the exact location of those islands from your drive or second shot.

If, you, TEPaul and A Clayman find this feature so unobjectionable, why isn't it's use universal ?

[John L. Low]

Pat,

Calling my comparisons "wild" does not make them so. But it is often what one does to deflect attention away from the crux of the matter in discussions like these. I simply brought up a different golf hole FEATURE that was hidden to my eye when I played the 8th at NGLA. I did not EQUATE hidden ponds or hidden bunkers with the false front at #8. I treated each as a feature of a golf course. That's why I used the phrase "golf features across the board." Are you acting like that point is not obvious or are you truly confused on that point? I simply wanted to know if there were any instances that you could get behind and support whereby a golfer, in this case myself, could play a hole the features of which are not all perfectly identifiable in terms of their exact and relative location and still consider the hole fair. I ask you, how do you in your daily golf round deal with back green contours that are not readily visable to your eye from every spot on the fairway? What recourse do we, albeit naive, good hearted golfers have when those same contours kick our shots offline?

The 7th hole does not have underbrush in the pot bunker or the right greenside bunker because I assume the framers/superintendent of the hole figured that if a golfer was likely to pick up his ball when hopes of extraction became futile it was not necessary to add any other difficulty. Someone might add underbrush one day and I will be sorry if I make the mishit needed to find myself there. I will have only myself to blame now that I know that there is a bunker there. Rub of the green.

You should try to give some examples Pat, since you started this thread. Examples of these mysterious, crop circle-like bunkers that you allude to. I am the one saying that a golfer can stand on many golf holes and depending on his/her location not have total visability of bunkers, ponds, ground contours, sea gulls flying in wait for a chance to steal off with a nicely hit approach shot, and the hole still be fair. I did give you examples such as the water feature at #15 at Augusta. If I am 250 yards out, to use your distance, I cannot see the pond, its edges' exact and relative location because of the hill. Just try to imagine something along those lines. It is not hard to do. We have all played holes where golf features are out there, but we cannot see them from where we are standing. Your job on the golf course is to do the best you can to navigate them. I played courses 25 years agon in college in southern Texas on the gulf where the ground contours obscured my view of a given pond or bunker or further contour because of MY exact and relative position. I play courses to this day where the lay of the land obscures golf features left and right. Why not stop pretending that doesn't happen all the time? I don't understand your stubbornness. But to each his own.

Your job, should you choose to accept it is to compare a hidden, war-like bunker of your imagination and a hidden pond of your imagination. Apples and apples. But really Pat, hidden bunkers versus visable ponds? Come now Pat, that's not going to right the upset applecart, is it? HIDDEN BUNKER=apple. VISABLE POND=orange. Or if you like you can compare one of those so called gnarly bunkers to the pot bunker on #7 NGLA, since that bunker's depth cannot be "known" until one hits into it. That's at least comparing a Granny Smith apple to a Golden Delicious.

When I mentioned to you to consider the 13th at Augusta, you dismissed it as a hole in which one could readily avoid the water feature. I ask you again Pat, how is it that one cannot readily avoid these bunkers that you mention? How did they in the course of this thread become so black hole like? Such a gravitational force? You see, I don't have to pinpoint the exact locations of the underbrush in the bunkers, I simply have to avoid the bunker altogether or take my medicine. In the event that I decide to take up a historical, Lewis and Clark like journey through a golf course and survey in exact detail every ornery blade of grass, I will seek out the best modern technology has to offer to help me succeed. Until then, I will play it as it lies. You know what really stinks? It is when your approach shot hits a sprinkler head and bounds off course. That's like when a umpire in football accidentally runs interference on a pass play and your hated rival catches one over the middle for a first down. So much to lament, so little time.

As for casual water, I will defer to the Rules of Golf. If they, and I mean the big "they", want me to start hitting from casual water in a trap, then so be it. What is the big question? Maybe I didn't answer you before because I don't see the use in EQUATING something the rule book says is worthy of a free drop and something the rule book says is part of the rub of the green. I am just a lowly golfer. I will abide by the rules.

I will also agree to disagree on this issue for lack of anything that holds out hope of changing my stance. My stance on the rub of the green. You don't think the rub of the green applys to certain brush in the bunkers, I do. You don't accept that I can stand 250 yards away from a greensite and not see all or part of pond that will play a part in my shot. I do accept that.

We do agree on one thing though. I agree that you can stand 250 to 50 yards away from certain bunkers and not see the brush that is there. I just am not bothered by it.

Rub of the green.

[TEPaul]

Pat says:

"If, you, TEPaul and A Clayman find this feature so unobjectionable, why isn't it's use universal ?"

I dunno Pat! I sometimes really can't figure out where you really are coming from sometimes. Do you REALLY think something, anything, a feature, whatever, HAS TO BE UNIVERSAL to work in golf architecture? Do you really think that? Are you really that formulaic?

And I just love the way you can blithely pass off a really applicable remark (on blindness) of a guy (Tommy Armour) who was one of the greats of golf, a guy who won Opens, as cute! His remark on blindness was one of the more logically commonsensical architectural remarks in architectural annals!

Rugged bunker grass is just part of some architecture, deal with it!

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't believe that any of the vegetation-strewn bunkers I included in my pics are "blind" in any way, shape, or form.

The classic original ones at Merion were all highly visible...Joe Valentine's laying on of "white sheets" during construction assured that.  

Yet, they were all very penal and unpredictable should one be so unfortunate as to get stuck in them, and in my mind, that sort of uncertainty SHOULD be a part of any "hazard" worthy of its name.

And...even if a vegetative strewn bunker is blind to a golfer, it's only blind once...not on the second, third, or 365th playing.  

So, what's the problem?  

[TEPaul]

MikeC said:

"The classic original ones at Merion were all highly visible...Joe Valentine's laying on of "white sheets" during construction assured that.  

Yet, they were all very penal and unpredictable should one be so unfortunate as to get stuck in them, and in my mind, that sort of uncertainty SHOULD be a part of any "hazard" worthy of its name."

MikeC:

In the name of truth in golf architectural analysis, there's something you should know.

The old pre-bunker project bunkers of Merion were NOT more penal to get out of than they are now! And frankly, they weren't all that terribly penal to get out of pre-bunker restoration.

Of course, anyone should accurately say it very much depended on which bunker at Merion you were talking about.

Some were really problematic, some were't. There was a great deal of inconsistency about recovering from the bunkering of Merion pre-bunker restoration, which is exactly what, I, personally loved so much. The fact that Merion was that way required a pretty high degree of experience and local knowledge, which was part of the challenge and charm of the golf coure, in my opinion.

They may have been somewhat unpredictable because the sand surfaces in them could be unpredictable from bunker to bunker, but penal? Not like some of them are penal now--because of the architectural challenge of many of them now like extreme depth in some!

Again, many of them are "architecturally" penal now, while in the past many of them were unpredicatable only in that many of the sand surfaces were inconsistent, hard packed and a bit intense to play out of because of things of that nature.

It would probably be accurate to say that good players did not struggle in the pre-bunker restoration bunkers as much as the not so good players did.

The pre-restoration bunkers frankly weren't all that different than many of the old bunkers one sometimes sees on the good old courses in this district now. The thing was, though, they were Merion's evolutionary bunkers and they were very famous as they were!

And then there was the subject of the grasses within some of them. That could certainly be very penal, depending whether you got in those areas of bunker grass. But everyone who knew the course knew that and seemed to accept it. That's just the way it always was. Nothing was consistent about the old Merion bunkers, just, as I suppose bunkers in nature probably aren't all that consistent from bunker to bunker.

But were the Merion bunkers more penal then than now? It just ain't that simple!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Please allow me to clarify.  I was talking specifically about the original bunkers at Merion that included vegetation, and only those although I can see how that might have been lost by splitting it into two sentences.

"I don't believe that any of the vegetation-strewn bunkers I included in my pics are "blind" in any way, shape, or form."

"The classic original ones at Merion were all highly visible...Joe Valentine's laying on of "white sheets" during construction assured that."

I wasn't trying to compare the pre and post bunkers in terms of penality, but trying to point out relevant to this discussion that bunkers like the old 10th, 14th, 13th, etc., were always visible and had the potential for being very penal due to the uncertainty of result.

I know the new ones are deeper (and sometimes steeper), but with so much vegetation removed, I can't comment as to their uncertainty these days.

I was simply using the original "vegetated" ones as a point of discussion that I thought many could relate to...not trying to open that whole issue again.  Lord knows we've talked that one through.      

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I don't want to divert this thread to a discussion of the Merion bunkers again, either, only to clarify various bunker situations with vegetation in them, without vegetation, blind, visible, whatever.

The point is (I think on this thread) to analyze any bunker situation to any golfer at any time, and what it does or can do to his ability to recover.

It looks to me as if Pat Mucci is attempting to analyze various types of bunkering for some degree of penality or over penality (he did mention 'double penalty' on this thread), probably as much to make a point that golf courses should have a degree of consistency to them in this way.

Merion's bunker, in the recent past and long ago at times did have so serious clumps of dune or love grass in them. Not all of them had that but some. Golfers could certainly see it when approaching those bunkers and occassionally got tangled up in that dune grass to their true detriment.

My point was to ask, should that be acceptable to a golf course. I think it should, particularly certain golf courses but maybe not all golf courses. As for the visibility of those bunkers--Merion's are all pretty visible as that was one of the primary dictates of Hugh Wilson and Merion. But other courses like Pine Valley had (has) some extremely scrubby vegetation in SOME of its bunkering and it isn't visible. I think that too is OK on certain courses, like a Pine Valley.

I think that's one of the very reasons the course, both courses have always been considered quite notable.

Pat seems to think such things should not be acceptable in golf architecture anywhere, and I for one can't buy that philosophy. I just don't think the idea of "one size fits all" is something that belongs in golf architecture. That philosophy tends to homogonize and formularize architecture and I think that's not a good thing to do. A lot of the overall beauty of golf architecture to me is the differences in it.

I also believe that Merion is returning some areas of love or dune grass to some bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

On more than three occassions I've asked you to name just five holes that have water immediately adjacent to the green where the approach to the green is blind.

Of all the golf holes in the world why are you unable to do so ?

There is a reason, do you know what it is ?

You've restated my position incorrectly and used extreme examples in an attempt to further your point.

I never stated that water had to be totally visible or that any architectural feature had to be totally visible, but, don't you find it alarming that you can't name just five holes where water is immediately adjacent to the green and the approach to that green is blind ?

Why have all the architects, throughout the history of golf course design avoided building holes with the above configuration ?

If you could answer and address this one issue and name just five holes, I'll continue with the remainder of my premise.

P.S.  To answer the casual water/undergrowthisland in a
        bunker issue by quoting the rules is to avoid the
        intellectual aspect of the question, and a cop out, at
        best.  Look at the question in the context of purely
        playing the game and the rub of the green.

TEPaul,

It would appear that you've never played the 17th at Prestwick, a hole that continues to be blind every time that you play it.  

If we adhere to the notion that the Scots invented the game, and that Scotland is the home of the game, and that they've been at this for centuries, and have it just about perfect after all these years, then you have to wonder, why do they find the blindness of the 17th green, which is on a relatively short hole, so offensive, that they place a directional marker on top of the hill to TELL the golfer, where the cup is ?

There is no water next to or near the 17th green.

Surely, the Scots understand 'Rub of the Green".

Why the need to provide direction on a blind hole, and....
It's the second hole on the course that they do it on.  
A par 3 on the front nine has the identical configuration, complete with directional marker.

But, let's go a little closer to home, to the 3rd hole at NGLA.
Why are there directional markers on the shot to the green ?
Why not rely totally, on the "rub of the green" ?

Or, can rub of the green be deemed to not always be in the golfers best interest ?  And as such, an aid is inserted, a device to ameliorate the effect of 'Blind Luck or Blind Bad Luck"
in the play of a hole.

Is it, that the penalty for blindness can be excessive, and as such, aids are provided in an attempt to reduce the chances of introducing the golfer to those situations ?

Now, bear in mind, I'm referencing excessively penal situations, that are extremely close to the cup, the green, and the lines of intended play to and around the green, that are invisible to the golfers eye.

I don't think it is a quantum leap to understand the absence of water immediately adjacent to greens with blind approaches, in the context of excessively penal, with hidden bunkers incorporating hidden undergrowth, immediately adjacent to a green ?  
Both, are examples of bad architecture.

Mike Cirba,

Your initial reference to the grasses in the bunkers at # 9 and # 17 at NGLA reinforces my point.

As you stand on the tee, those grasses are clearly visible, though not reachable by mortals.  Those grasses sit in the midst of an elevated convex bunker.  Is the existance of those grasses at those locations, to the exclusion of all others, a fluke, or intended ?

Were they intended to be encountered by the golfer, strictly visually, or during the actual play of the golf course ?

Do you feel that they pose an unusual, meaningful or excessive threat, once encountered.

Why didn't CBM put them in any concave bunkers ?

Do you think that he might have felt that his bunker locations and configurations provided the strategic and playability challenges he envisioned, and that if he was going to add windmills, he would do so at the highest elevation on the property, not in the bunkers ?

[John L. Low]

Pat,

Even if I hadn't made the heroic carry over this gnarly bunker thread (which I most certainly have) by providing in great detail my position on what is blantantly obvious to everyone but you, TEPaul, Adam and Mike have all hit into the vegetative bunker morass that you so fear in golf and gotten up and down in two for a neat and tidy birdie (we'll call this a par 5 thread  ).

Like a golf course without any heroic reward and RISK, this thread is becoming stale. It has become a place where you can ignore direct answers or worse, pretend that they aren't answers, thus riling up even TEPaul (who is right by the way) during the holidays. It has now become just a place where I can come up with humorous names for the twisted caddie eating kudzu that pops up on occasion in a bunker and eats your lunch while it is at it. As the Good Dr. said, a good golf hole is one where a golfer can prevail heroically or his hopes can be crushed against the rock cress (rock cress is a plant in case you don't know.)

Like the family practicioner said to the man who went to a foreign country and boldly drank the water, "Rub of the green."

Like the mechanic said to the man who insisted that he did not need to put any oil in his car, "Rub of the green."

Like the the physics teacher trying to explain the most basic physical principle of cause and effect to her 8th grade science class, "Rub of the green."

Rub of the green old chap, rub of the green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Now you're REALLY reaching!  

Your original post on this thread mentioned the vegetation growth in the bunkers on the 9th at Garden City and the 16th at Boca Rio.  It said nothing about "blind bunkers".    

Neither of those bunkers are blind to the golfer, and the player taking driver on the 9th realizes the risk (he KNOWS there is uncertain vegetation in that bunker when he tees off!) when he does so.  What's unfair about that?

The golfer going for the 16th at Boca Rio in two knows that there is growth in the right-hand bunker, and can see it.  What's unfair about that??

The 9th at Garden City;



The 16th at Boca Rio;



For discussion purposes, let's assume that the vegetation in any particular bunker was low-lying and so carefully hidden from view as to be a "Surprise" to the first-time player.  

Wouldn't that same golfer now KNOW for certain that he needed to avoid that bunker on each subsequent playing?

Or, are you saying that you've become so accurate that you need visibility to see what part of the bunker you want your shot to "miss" in?      

[John L. Low]

Mike, Is that water in that first photo right next to the green? I see the trees reflected in it, so it looks like water. If so, it would be hard for Pat to argue that the bunker grass is not visable but the water is visable. I'm sure he will try though.  

[Mike_Cirba]

John Low;

Nope, no water there.  

Are you referring to the steep-faced bunker left-front of the green?  Those are "skid marks", not tree reflections, and I won't speculate on their origin.  

[John L. Low]

Mike,

Maybe an all-terrain vehicle with a chain wrapped around the neck of some shrubbery??  

You see, even a visable bunker isn't always discernable to the naked eye. What's a golfer to do but play through.

[ChipOat]

The clumps of grass in the bunker on GCGC #9 may be a touch more penal than the bunker itself but still are eminently playable (I'm afraid I speak from experience) and extremely unlikely to cause a lost ball.

That seems OK to me.

The old clumps of dune grass at Merion were one of the few aspects of that marvelous course that I did not find appealling.  I've lost balls on #'s 10, 12 and 13 in the stuff that would have simply been difficult bunker shots had the ball been 1 foot in any other direction.

I've never liked that manifestation of "rub of the green" and I still don't.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ornamental grass in bunkers and the photos that Mike C posted are two different things in my view. When I think of ornamental grass, I think of the tufts of grass seen at NGLA in the new Macdonald book. Anybody know what the history of that feature might be.

Mike's bunkers all are very appealing to be....benign or unfair...they are true hazards they can not be ignored. The beauty of the 'growth' is the fact you never know what your destiny might be. The fact that it isn't black and white (like a water hazard) adds to the interest. You have choice - take an unplayable or try to be a hero.

I'm big proponent of MacKenzie' theory that these visually intimidating bunkers create as much exhiliration as they do angst.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Low,

I've answered all of your questions.  
Your hypothetical questions with flawed assumptions can't be reasonably addressed.

But, you continue to fail to answer my simple question.
Just name me five greens with water next to them that have blind approaches.  Why are you unable to answer this question which is at the core of the issue ?

Please, either provide five examples, or simply say that there are none that you are aware of.

Mike Cirba.

The islands in the first picture have been reduced to their most benign form through intentional maintainance.
And, they are blind from the tee and from the fairway unless you've hit your tee shot within ten yards of the berm.

At one time, some of those islands had some rather gnarly undergrowth in them, resulting in dire consequences for balls that came to rest in them, that could be found.

They were trimmed/thinned for a reason, because they were blind and excessively penal to the golfer.   And, that was done without my input or influence.

As you know the prevailing wind is toward the green, and when the pin is up front it's impossible to get it close.
Some feel that a driver into that bunker is a great play since a sand or L-wedge would allow a golfer to get close to the pin.
When the islands were full of uncontrolled/unmaintained underbrush, only those with a blood alcohol reading of .20 and higher would attempt it.

It is unfortunate that the 1936 aerial didn't include the 9th green, as I would have like to have seen how that bunker was configured.

The mounds in the bunkers at # 14 and # 16 at Boca Rio are maintained at the same height as the rough throughout the rest of the golf course, and as such, are not excessively penal

Lastly, I see part of John Low's problem in grasping this.
He thinks water looks like parked cars