Why should balls that almost get in a bunker be worse off than if in the bunker

[Pat Howard]

John,
   That's a pretty easy one to answer. They get "phased out" as you said, because the membership doesn't want punishing hazards. Take your average member. They'd be about 50-60 years old at most clubs, give or take a few years, and their handicaps are just slightly lower than their age. Of course hairy bunkers get phased out! They'd take out the WHOLE bunker if they could! As to your resort comment, I'm not sure where you were going with that, so I'll leave that for now until you clarify further.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JakaB,

Pine Tree has hairy bunkers, mostly in the front, and while they add a textured look, from a playability point of view, I, and others dislike them.

They tend to be excessively punitive.

And, they seem out of character.

An approach shot that's only ten feet from the hole shouldn't result in a triple bogie.

I'd rather see a less dense, less groomed face that would repel the ball into the bunker, rather then have a decent apporach result in a lost ball.

[Sean_A]

I recall Pine Needles had love grass in their waste areas.  I spose it looks alright, but if a player is directly behind this stuff their recovery options are limited.  The love grass at Pine Needles is basically the equivalent of having tufts of very penal rough in the general rough area.  Not a feature I  thought much of.

Ciao

Sean

[cary lichtenstein]

I always love hairy bunkers, they bring texture, color, dimension into the landscape, another challenge.

Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Personally I like blondes and brunettes, Country and Western. I love the look of RCD or Walton Heath (where there is sone NASTY heather around some bunkers), I also love the look of Muirfield and actually like the new Sea Island Seaside bunkers - huge and clean. I think T Doak commented in another thread that mixing and matching stylles on a course tends not to work, and I'd agree. A consistent look and feel to bunkering is all I'd ask.
And being on the edge of a bunker is just a tough shot. I also lost a ball to the left of the 18th at Wentworth East, as I recall in a bush amonst the bunkers.. rather annoying, but I did hit it there.

[Jason Blasberg]

Because it's golf, not baseball.

[ChipOat]

John K:

I do agree that bushes in bunkers tend to slow up play, I have the same objection to ultra-deep rough.

Why can't there be a local rule that says, if the players agree the ball went into the bush, it is deemed to be in the hazard instead of a lost ball?  They do that for water hazards.

Perhaps Tom Paul has an answer to that.

As for my biggest pet peeve - Stupid Trees, that's a whole 'nother thread.

[Doug Siebert]

Pat

Trees intefering with bunker play is an abomination.  The 12th at Tobacco Road has a bunker at the outside turn of the dogleg.  If you go into this bunker there is a tree in the way which eliminates the chance for a great recovery.  All one can do is chip out.  Utter rubbish.

How is having a tree in the way that prevents a great recovery from a bunker different in any way whatsoever from a tree in the way preventing a great recovery from the rough?  Or preventing a great shot from the fairway?  In the fairway one is surely more deserving of the opportunity for greatness without interference from trees versus a poor shot that has ended up in a bunker!  If you go into a deep pot bunker you similarly have no option for a "great recovery" and all you can do is blast out sideways or backwards.  How is this different from the situation you describe?

If you don't think trees have any place on a golf course anywhere they can affect play, fine, but its absolutely ridiculous to suggest that when they interfere with play from a bunker they are somehow worse than those which interfere with play from anywhere else.  I've never see this attitude anywhere else other than GCA, I just don't get why some people think shots from bunkers have some special rights to treeless recovery not extended to shots from elsewhere.

[Sean_A]

Doug

I understand where you are coming from only I disagree.  

I am not a big fan of trees unless the specimen is worth keeping.  Even then I don't like trees in play unless one has hit a poor shot.  Driving into the bunker at #12 is not a poor shot.  The bunker is only a few yards off the fairway at the corner of a nearly 90 degree dogleg.  

Any shot that isn't fun to hit (assuming the player hasn't hit a wild one to get there in the first place) shouldn't exist if it can be easily eliminated.  In my opinion the shot is sufficiently difficult and would be funner if the tree was removed.  

A treeless bunker would also encourage more aggressive play which would probably result in more people hitting that bunker.

I know my view is purely subjective and that every course has to be played how one finds it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.  

Ciao

Sean

[texsport]

If it's a fairway bunker it's unfair, either in design or because of maintenance.

If it's a greenside bunker, it's perfectly fair. An approach shot that is shorter or wide of a green-side bunker should be more severely penalized than a slightly better shot which found the bunker.