Is depth an answer ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a golf course, especially a classic golf course is to challenge the greatest players in the world, don't the bunkers have to be made deeper ?

It would seem that shallow bunkers, with faces that don't present an interuption or impediment to the sight and flight of the ball, are useless.

Where drainage permits, shouldn't bunkers be made deeper ?

Would the memberships, who obviously court these tournaments, embrace this alteration ?

Wouldn't this alteration have a minimal impact on the design integrity of the golf course ?

[A.G._Crockett]

It sounds like you are saying that the penalty to professionals for landing in a bunker should be similar to what it typically is for me, and that this would be accomplished by hosting tournaments on courses with bunkers that would make this happen.

Even the great classic courses that seek to host professional tournaments are the home course for the much less accomplished membership the other 361 days of the year.  Bunkers like you are talking about would border on unplayable for the membership, wouldn't they?

Besides, shouldn't the best players in the world be able to recover spectacularly well from bunkers that typically cost me a stroke or two?  After all, that's one of the ways that they are identified as the best in the world.  Identifying and rewarding skill, including the skill of recovery, is possibly the essence of good design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

Pine Valley, Garden City Golf Club and National Golf Links of America all have these types of bunkers and the members don't seem to complain about them.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think you are going from the instance to the generalization here.  

[Jim Thompson]

The only depth that should be increased is that of the teeth of the rakes that maintain them!  Bring back MacDonald"s troop of cavalry and ban the rake, otherwise accept that tour golf is not true golf anymore.

Cheers!

JT

[paul cowley]

Pat ..I do enjoy the way you pose questions knowing full well your own answers

 I like to design  bunkers on any hole by a strength rating [a 10 being probably that 22' deep greenside bunker at Yeamans, I forget which hole], and I think most every hole that has a sand hazard should have a solid 7.5 bunker as a factor to contend with strategically....that said, I don't think any of what I or you have said really matters to the elite players...can't design for em, can't shoot em , damn.

[James Bennett]

I recall playing at Royal Adelaide some time ago (5 years or more) in an ordinary play day.  I was mightily miffed when I discovered that the bunkers on some holes now included a downhill slope.  The bunkers in question may have been shallow, but it was impossible to get near any short-sided pins.  My apparent skill was doomed to failure and a returning long putt. (Note - many of RA's bunkers are definitely not shallow).

I'm not commenting on whether I like this style - it is just a more significant penalty without undertaking significant costs of bunker rebuilding.  Admittedly, I expect their natural sand base meant resloping the bunker was quite easy - we couldn't do it at my course if we wanted to (we're on clay ).

I don't know whether this characteristic of down-hill lies still remains at Royal Adelaide.

[Doug Siebert]

Paul,

That's an interesting statement you made about holes that have bunkers should have one that's at least a 7.5 to contend with.  Could you expand on that a bit more?  Can you give a few examples of holes that follow this idea of having at least one bunker that's a 7.5?

I'd love it yours were a general rule, since at least here in the US that 7.5 would be more like about 3.5 (at least in my mind, unless your scale is logarithmic ) as for some reason some architects seem very worried about how hard bunkers are for average players and thus don't want to be too nasty, but don't worry about how much worse water, thick trees, OB stakes and deep rough are for them!

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Wouldn't the design integrity be impacted if they were made deeper?  

Isn't the ideal bunker depth on a hole that which is just enough to tempt someone to get greedy and take the club that will reach the green, rather than be just off safely?

Shallow pits, no, but not too much depth.  Otherwise, it's no different to high rough if it's just the same hack wedge sideways.

Why not have bunkers unraked instead?

I wish they were at my course - even though ours are plenty deep enough in places.

[paul cowley]

 Doug....I rarely try to post anything here about generalities in design, because half the time the exceptions are the rule [plus you might as well stake yourself to the beach and wait for a flock of gulls with the commentary here at times ]but...
 When bunkers are part of the strategic story of a given hole, I try to match and  create a difficulty factor that follows the story line....at greenside, I like to blend the difficulty factor with the green design to create a range of options around the complex...from easy and advancing through different levels to at least one area that you should try to avoid as there will be little reward...just pain .
....the only reason I have created a scale at all is to communicate with the people helping to create the course.

 A 10 scale bunker would would generally result in a loss of a stroke and then scale backwards to flat sand and puttable.

 

[Jonathan Cummings]

I agree with Jim 'MacDonald' Thompson completely.  The more fearful you can make a bunker the more the meaning the word hazard has to the player.  Leave the bunkers completely unmaintained.  Give me roots, weeds, soil and sand.  I want to see pure despair on the face of a player who lands in a bunker.

JC

[wsmorrison]

"Pine Valley, Garden City Golf Club and National Golf Links of America all have these types of bunkers and the members don't seem to complain about them."

Pat,

I am certain you are aware of the difference between always having deep bunkers and remodeling deep bunkers on a course that never had them.  In the later case members---especially seniors are bound to complain and some rightly so.  Getting in and out of the bunkers has to be a priority when increasing the depth of bunkers.  If it is not, the problems are great.  The last thing you want to do is make the course unplayable at times for a large cross section of the membership.


Merion and Glen View Club are courses that easily spring to mind where the bunkers are deeper than they ever were and in many cases where the faces are also steeper as a result of maintaining bunker area.  Courses that have a history of and are known for championship play are more likely to make the determination that the test needs to be stiffened given the technological changes.  I'm not sure I completely agree with this but it is a definite thought process.  I am more of the mind of Jim, Jonathan and others that the bunker depth should be maintained as intended and the cheaper route of keeping rakes off the course during play is an outstanding though controversial move.

I am of a mind along the lines of Hugh Wilson that thought bunker depth should not be so great that the good and bad player are forced to play the same type of shot--that is a blast back to the fairway or towards the green.  The skilled player should be allowed, even in a bunker (which he may risk with deliberate bold play while a less skilled player may mistakenly land in), to use his greater skills in the recovery from a hazard and not be equally penalized a stroke like the high handicapper.

[Andy Hughes]

If a golf course, especially a classic golf course is to challenge the greatest players in the world, don't the bunkers have to be made deeper ?

Pine Valley, Garden City Golf Club and National Golf Links of America all have these types of bunkers and the members don't seem to complain about them.

Pat, do Pine Valley, Garden City and NGLA challenge the greatest players in the world? (no snark intended)
I saw Littler and Nelson duke it out at PV, and they were certainly challenged 40 years ago. Would that still be the case (and no, I don't mean would Littler and Nelson be challenged today   )?

[Mike_Cirba]

I agree with Jim 'MacDonald' Thompson completely.  The more fearful you can make a bunker the more the meaning the word hazard has to the player.  Leave the bunkers completely unmaintained.  Give me roots, weeds, soil and sand.  I want to see pure despair on the face of a player who lands in a bunker.

JC

I'm up for boiling oil, radioactive waste, toxic sludge, and a bit of quicksand, as well.  

Seriously.  

Does anyone here think firm, raked, well-maintained (some are even watered for firmness!) sand is a "hazard"?  

Talk about pussies.

[Bob_Huntley]

If one were to bring up Ran's Courses By Country, under MPCC, Pebble Beach, you will find a photograph of the ninth hole of the Dunes Course.

You will notice a sand dune running downhill from the right to the left front of the green. This is not a hazard and one can ground one's club. However the area is not raked and I must say I have never seen anyone attempt to smooth out their massive footprints after several futile attempts at extricating themselves from a deep hole.

Perhaps the Oakmont furrows are the best defense in bunkers but why not have a few holes around the green, not unlike the aforementioned dune and leave it at that?

[Derek_Duncan]

There's some evidence to suggest Rees Jones believes that bunker depth, if not the answer, is at least an answer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Ferguson,

When I see 15 handicap players hitting specialty utility clubs out of fairway bunkers, getting adequate loft and distance, it tells me that bunkers have become less of a hazard for a great cross section of golfers, and thus, having them deeper, would seem to counter the impact of technology and make bunkers the hazard they were intended to be.

[Tom_Doak]

I believe that depth is not a good answer.

I'm not against a deep or severe bunker now and again ... or even a course full of them if that's the style, a la Fishers Island.  But a whole course of deep bunkers just exaggerates the difference between the good player (who can get out of most any bunker easily, unless it's built to be impossible) and the bad player (who struggles to get out of any deep bunker).

If you want to go to the extreme of impossible bunkers, well, I don't think many people have much fun in them.

[harley_kruse]

Of course for the pros it is not a matter of whether they can get out of a bunker or not but what sort of penaly it provides

I remember prior to an Australian Open at Kingston Heath a few years back the AGU worked with the club to deepen some of the bunkers on this already famously bunkered layout. And deepen they did.

The idea behind this was to make certain fairway bunkers a certain one shot penalty in that it would be impossible to reach the green from them.

I'm a fan of a mixture of depths but hate to see bunkers where players can use a 5 wood to reach the green