Fairway bunkers - creating fear & doubt on the tee

[Patrick_Mucci]

What features or qualities of a fairway bunker most intimidate the golfer on the tee, the first time he plays the hole, and on the repeated play of the hole ?

[Dan Kelly]

I'm sure there are any number of qualities of fairway bunkers that create fear and doubt in a player on the tee.

Fear and doubt, yes -- but most assuredly not CONFUSION!

I take that on the authority of one Patrick Mucci, Jr., in a thread titled "Confounding Choices: The Essence of Great GCA?" -- in which Mr. Mucci scoffed at the thesis with these words, among others: "Very few golfers that I know, from plus 5's to 36 handicappers are confused on the tee..."

Doubt is doubtless something utterly different from CONFUSION. Or am I confused about that? Doubtless I am.

[CHrisB]

Depth!

When playing at Muirfield, for example, you know on several occasions you'll have to challenge the fairway bunkers, which are deep pots and if found almost always mean an extra shot to reach the green.

They may not be large, yawning, visually intimidating or even visible, but you know you'll be in big trouble if you catch one, and furthermore, if you're in one you won't be guaranteed of playing out in the direction of the hole or even sideways back into the fairway.  Witness Thomas Levet's shot on #18 in the British Open playoff last year, when he found the left fairway bunker, but had to play farther left into a trampled area and then played his 3rd onto the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

You're confused.

I doubt that you understand the distinction between the two words.  Revisiting the dictionary may help you.

It might also help you to understand the context in which a word is used.

Have you tried posting something that's relevant to golf course architecture lately ?

Chris B,

I thought about the various features related to bunkers and
what in particular made me want to avoid them, and....
DEPTH, in relation to the face wall, was the one feature that seemed to be the overwhelming factor in my concerns from the tee.

Nothing else seemed to trouble me, shape, size, style and position all seemed quite manageable, but depth was the one factor that made me want to avoid the bunker, and weighed heavily on my decision to challenge the bunker.

Is depth the overwhelming factor, almost to the exclusion of all others ?


Typically, another post from you that contains no pertinent

[Dan Kelly]

Have you tried posting something that's relevant to golf course architecture lately ?

You know the answer to that one, sir -- or at least you should. (Funny thing: Whenever I see the word "sir," I think of Joseph Welch saying to Joe McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" Oops. Sorry. That had nothing to do with GCA.)

I encourage you to revisit the thread called "Confounding Choices: The Essence of Great GCA?" -- a thread I began. That one isn't close to being worn out yet. You might discover, should you do so, that the "fear and doubt" you want to talk about here are quite akin to the "confusion" and "unsettledness" we were talking about there -- an idea you scoffed at. I have addressed questions directly to you in that thread -- questions you have failed to answer.

I would invite you to consider the questions raised in my thread titled "Start Somewhere Else!" I thought that was an interesting thread; it was certainly about golf-course architecture.

And I would urge you to revisit the thread on "strategy for hacks," where I have addressed questions (about The Old Course specifically, and golf courses generally) directly to you -- questions that you have failed to address.

You're free not to address my questions, of course -- but in the meantime, I'd appreciate a little decency.

P.S. I apologize for being such a terrible smart-alec in Reply #1, above. It was a counterpunch I couldn't resist -- though, if I were a better man, I would have. You know what that's like, I'm sure.  

[ForkaB]

Patrick

I too would encourage you to revisit Dan's "Confounding" thread, which is a rich one.  This one is going nowhere.  It is far to one-dimensional (depth)--as you too figured out after being prompted by Chris B.......(insert smiley face here).

[CHrisB]

Is depth the overwhelming factor, almost to the exclusion of all others ?

The only other reasons I would avoid a fairway bunker at all costs would be if (i) the condition of the bunker sand was such that there was no guarantee of advancing the ball very far (something like the old Oakmont furrows), (ii) if there was a decent chance the ball would plug, like my one round at Bethpage Black a few years ago, or (iii) if part or all of the bunker was narrow enough to guarantee awkward stances (one foot out and one in, both feet out, ...)--something like a trench bunker or one with narrow "fingers".

But those are unusual conditions--most of the time depth is the one factor that will get people thinking on the tee.

[ian]

I've been racking my brain for anything beyond depth and the only thing I could come up with was additional vegitation found within or immediately around the bunker.


not the best eaxample, but this photo kind of works

[Craig Disher]

There's no doubt what to do here but even though this bunker is barely 200 yards off the back tee, it creates significant fear. Obviously it's at least a half stroke penalty and with a bad lie near the face, the penalty could be much more.

To complicate the issue, the hole plays directly into the prevailing wind.

[A_Clay_Man]

I like the dual aspect of creating trepidation, while if successfully conquered, rewarded for the challenge. ala the ridges at lawsonia or even here at Pinon. But to me its the placement of the bunker along with its depth that will cause a caddie to caution.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

Intimidation is usually a product of recognition.

Confusion is often the product of an inability to recognize.

I trust that you understand the distinction.

ChrisB,

I don't have the vision to determine the condition of a bunker at 225 to 275 yards, so that's almost never a factor.

The narrowness found in trench and pot bunkers would be a factor, but these bunkers are so rare that we don't usually come into contact with them, let alone see them from 225 to 275 yards.

Plugging is usually a function of flight/trajectory and I must admit that I've never given that consequence any thought while standing on a tee.

The perception that the configuration of the bunker will substantially act to impede the flight of my recovery shot seems to be the overwhelming consideration, and that almost always translates to depth, or face wall height.

Ian Andrew,

The 6th at PV presents a collage of bunkers mixed with other unpleasant features, at assorted depths, certainly an intimidating sight off the tee, one that is best avoided.
I wonder, with today's distances, if this feature hasn't been circumvented, like the maginot line.

[ian]

Pat, absolutely not. You can carry the valley, but you better damn well hit a great shot. The more right you go the longr the line, and most players are enticed to that tight line right. The irony is a deep bunker awits you left of the green, and if you make the carry there is a likelyhood that you will have to carry part of that bunker on your approach.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

If one does carry directly over the right side bunkering on #6 Pine Valley the bunker to the left of the green is really of not much consideration. The shot into the green after that tee shot carry is very short and the green slopes so hard from right to left anyone who carried over that left greenside bunker from there would never keep his ball on the green anyway. For really long hitter though they have to be careful to not carry their tee shots too far but if they go a bit too far they'll be coming back against the slope of that green instead of along it. Really long hitters will carry a 3 wood or something like that over say the middle of that tee shot bunkering. You can imagine how surprised most observers were to see Davis Love carried his 1 iron way over that bunker from the tips in the 1980s.

#6 was the green that Crump apparently had every intention of taking the green to the very edge of the ridge about 40 yards farther along than it is even with the Alison green redesign of Crump's original green that was a bit shorter than the one there. One wonders why he didn't do that in the first place and I bet it had a lot to do with the length of #7 and the fact that Crump was a real fanatic about keeping greens and following tees extremely close.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

This brings up an interesting question.

Does the design of # 6 green present very little in the way of advantage to the golfer who takes their tee shot as far right as possible, since the slope would kick any shot from the right further down the green, whereas a tee shot that gets as close to the left side fairway rough is rewarded by having the sloped green serve as a semi-backstop to incoming approaches ?

What is the configuration of the land in the area 40 yards behind the current green, that you allude to ?

[ian]

Tom, as the "hommies" I play hockey with would say "my bad"

Pat, it must be the Alberta Beef I ate after visiting the local hospital.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

No, I'd say there's a big advantage to carrying the bunker on #6. You can get a good deal closer and the angle from that side really does help as you don't have to carry any part of that left greenside bunker. If you play a tee shot out to the left you do have to deal with that left greenside bunker which is at a really interesting diagonal from that approach. But the most important thing from over from the left is only about the left half of that green is pinnable. There're a couple of very interesting choices of tee shots and approach shots on that hole. About 40 yds behind the green is the same very severe ridge which runs all along the right side of the hole and about 40 yds back there it drops off behind the green. It would have been a most interesting place for a green and would have made a second shot far more challenging. That's what Crump thought anyway.

[Doug Siebert]

Depth is the thing that'll really make me think once, twice and again about a bunker when I'm on the tee.  I'll worry more about a pot bunker smaller than my bathroom than I will about a giant waste bunker ala Harbour Town.  The only thing that's worse is seeing a big nest of little pot bunkers.  One pot you might just take your chances with luck, but when they congregate, it is best to be elsewhere!

The other thing that'll bother me is if I know the sand is really soft.  It is much more difficult for me playing a full shot from bunker filled with quicksand-like sand that always results in the ball ending up about halfway down in the sand.  I don't have enough of a descending blow to pull that shot off reliably, and thus have to play a deliberate thin shot with obvious implications on the likelihood of success.