[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am going to play devil's advocate here..
Are modern day architects considering the well groomed state of the sand in bunkers today when they decide how many and where they place their bunkers...
If so..would this warrant a change if the bunkers all became furrowed?
After all  should ALL bunkers be considered a true hazard ?
Or should only certain well placed bunkers be considered as hazards of play.....for instance a fairway bunker only marginally off line shoule not be treated in the same manner as a greenside bunker on a short par 3.
I think that modern day architects have been able to not worry about this too much because the sand is generally so well groomed.
As such we get alot more "framing" bunkers than the old dudes used to place when the sand was less groomed...any opinions on this loose theory?

[Dan Kelly]

I recommend that you open a window at http://www.pgatour.com/scoring/leaderboard/r023 and choose the play-by-play option for a selection of players.

I haven't yet seen much bunker play reported -- but just "saw" Couples play out of a greenside bunker to 22 feet and Adam Scott play out of one to 15 feet. Both gentlemen are playing well today.

Those sorts of distances, as you well know, are not typical of play on the PGA ("These guys are good," "GET IN THE BUNKER!") Tour.

I love the idea.

---

Goosen on No. 3:

Play by Play for the Par 4, 401 yards 3rd Hole  
X
Shot 1 262 yds to right fairway, 155 yds to hole
Shot 2 162 yds to rear green side bunker, 10 yds to hole
Shot 3 17 yds to right intermediate, 19 ft to hole

Nick Price on No. 14:

Play by Play for the Par 4, 363 yards 14th Hole  
X
Shot 1 240 yds to left fairway, 130 yds to hole
Shot 2 133 yds to left green side bunker, 10 yds to hole
Shot 3 14 yds to green, 17 ft to hole

Stuart Appleby on No. 10:

Play by Play for the Par 4, 471 yards 10th Hole  
X
Shot 1 278 yds to right fairway, 202 yds to hole
Shot 2 181 yds to right green side bunker, 29 yds to hole
Shot 3 22 yds to green, 23 ft to hole

Joey Sindelar on No. 13:

Play by Play for the Par 4, 455 yards 13th Hole  
X
Shot 1 291 yds to right intermediate, 174 yds to hole
Shot 2 185 yds to right green side bunker, 16 yds to hole
Shot 3 21 yds to green, 15 ft to hole

Stuart Appleby on No. 11:

Play by Play for the Par 5, 567 yards 11th Hole  
X
Shot 1 292 yds to right rough, 276 yds to hole
Shot 2 59 yds to left fairway, 218 yds to hole
Shot 3 208 yds to left green side bunker, 12 yds to hole
Shot 4 20 yds to green, 23 ft to hole

Adam Scott on No. 13:

Play by Play for the Par 4, 455 yards 13th Hole  
X
Shot 1 319 yds to right rough, 148 yds to hole
Shot 2 134 yds to front left green side bunker, 15 yds to hole
Shot 3 24 yds to green, 27 ft to hole

And I'm not picking and choosing these. These are ALL of the greenside bunker shots I've seen among my highlighted players.

It's working!

P.P.S. Mike Weir on 15 -- with the first "close" shot from a greenside bunker:

Play by Play for the Par 5, 503 yards 15th Hole   
X
Shot 1 257 yds to right fairway, 236 yds to hole
Shot 2 227 yds to right front green side bunker, 18 yds to hole
Shot 3 20 yds to green, 6 ft to hole

[Scott Coan]

34% sand saves so far in todays round...

[PThomas]

I am STUNNED   to see this development actually occurring...I would have bet a  lot of money that the tour would have not allowed it

be interesting to see how high the whine factor is

[Mike_Cirba]

I may have to change my signage here to something like, "Furrows Forever!".  I'd always been a big fan of unraked bunkers, and still prefer them, but this gets past the legitimate concerns some raised about common courtesy.

 

[Mark_Fine]

I think this is great and I applaud Jack for doing it.  Jack clearly was giving bunkers some deep thought when Forrest and I interviewed him last year for our book.  Here are two of the questions we asked Jack followed by his responses:

Is raking bunkers not necessary?

JACK: Well, obviously there are two schools of thought on that. I think the predominant school of thought is that they should be raked. Sometimes I think that bunkers are not enough of a hazard because they are too easy. And for a good bunker player, there are not too many difficult bunkers.

Would a majority of pros rather miss the shot into a bunker?

JACK: Yes, because it’s so easy. But I’m not so sure that the furrowed bunkers at Oakmont shouldn’t be brought back, or I wouldn’t go to totally not raking. That would be like taking the right side of the 8th at Cypress, which has got 10 million footprints in it and there are a lot of golf balls that go in there. Not only are you lucky if you find your golf ball, there’s virtually no way to hit it out. It’s not very hazardous; it’s just a sand dune, but you could waste four or five shots there. I just think the game should be fun. So there’s a little bit of grey area in there. I think there are places where we get too maintained, but there are times when we don’t maintain them enough.

[Jimbo]

"A ball rolling to the center of the bunker should be a function of design and construction (Royal Melbourne) not maintenance practices."

Anthony,

I don't see why you grabbed my quote or what point you are trying to make with it.

I don't  want to seem pedantic, but I can't let this go.

If most types of sand dry out, or if the bunker is unmaintained, or lets say its raked a certain direction or depth, where the ball ends up does depends less and less on the design or construction technique.

Wetting them, packing them, smoothing them, etc, to assure the ball runs  to the middle of the bunker, are maintenance activities.  There isn't a sand or construction technique that would allow this to consistently happen without maintenance.

Are you saying all balls hit into bunkers at Royal Melbourne end up in the center of the bunker?  That would be amazing and I would bet my paycheck that its not true.

Or maybe I'm missing your point entirely.  

Many Cheers

[James Bennett]

Jimbo

I would not be surprised if the sand that you have to deal with is more difficult to manage than the sand that Royal Melbourne (and other Melbourne sand-belt courses) has been blessed with.

James B

[David Kelly]

Predictably the pros (other then Mickelson) are whining about the bunkers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2467009

"It was frustrating just to watch the other guys get out of them," Flesch said. "You about have to play bunkers as a water hazard."

[Ryan DeMay]

Here is an excellent shot of the rake and the bunkers courtesy of Dr. Karl Danneberger from The Ohio State University.

[George Pazin]

The other thing they mentioned on the broadcast is that grounds staff are maintaining the fairway bunkers and caddies the greenside bunkers.

It's not surprising the Tour would choose Jack's tournament to introduce a new idea.

Whoever had the idea deserves a reward for recognizing a hazard should be a hazard.

[Steve Curry]

No more "get in the bunker" comments.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I don't understand the 'common courtesy' issue you bring up. Could you explain it a bit for me?

George,
You're right, a hazard should be a hazard, but it'll be a sad day if this idea migrates off the Tour to a 'course near you'.

[JESII]

Jim,

Does not look like Mike is online at the moment so I'll give it a go...Mike aparently would favor no rakes in bunkers at all and the issue with that is the common courtesy variable dictating your lie. If I do not at least smooth out my footprints and divot area as well as I can and you are playing behind me.....

I think that's what is meant.

[Gary_Nelson]

Accurate assessment of player strategy may be tough to tell via Shotlink data.

How will we know if the PGA Tour players are altering their game plans to avoid the furrows?  Exit interviews with Roger Maltbie?

[JESII]

Driving distance!

Not as measured and reported for season long statistics, but on a hole-by-hole basis. This approach should have an impact on the FLOGGING issue, which should result in lower driving distance numbers.

Distance from the hole on Greens In Regulation should also increase from a more conservative shot.

Now that I've said this, I have no idea what statistics SHOTLINK actually provides.

[Craig Sweet]

One pro remarked that "back in the day" greens stimped at 6 and today they stimp at 13-14....which, by the way, I think is a huge stretch....and thus you need to be able to spin the ball....unlike "back in the day"....

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Does not look like Mike is online at the moment so I'll give it a go...Mike aparently would favor no rakes in bunkers at all and the issue with that is the common courtesy variable dictating your lie. If I do not at least smooth out my footprints and divot area as well as I can and you are playing behind me.....

I think that's what is meant.

Sully,

Thanks for filling in.  That's exactly what I meant.  I like the whole idea of covering your prints and marks with your foot or a club in bunkers without rakes but some feel that's a bit out of the courteous spirit of the game and that's understandable.

[JESII]

Mike,

I think your and my opinions on this would be identicle. I would love to promote no rakes but I'm obviously much too rational to thinkit is the solution. Sounds like you're in the same boat.

Craig,

Did the interviewer happen to say, "yeah well, back in the day they were hitting 6 irons into those bunkers and today you're hitting wedges into them. Figure it out for yourself chump."

And just think, I played professionally for a few years.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike, JES,
I don't know what "...the right side of the 8th at Cypress, which has got 10 million footprints in it...." looks like but it sounds like the nasty pit that a bunker should be. It must be a bear in there if the Bear doesn't like it.
This idea of furrows, to me at least, has an overkill aspect which I am having a hard time agreeing with. Why go to all this trouble when a simple little deep raking would loosen up the sand and cause an appropriate level of misery, i.e., a natural approach that promotes deep lies and toughens up the recovery? I mean, look at the photo posted above and consider the player who hits one into the middle of this trap. The only way to effectively rake it properly is to do so lengthwise, from the foreground to the background, no? What happens if the guy walks out sideways? You'd have to rake out a tremendously large area to comply with 'common courtesy', wouldn't you?

I'll agree, furrows are better than nothing and although I didn't get a chance to watch today I will make up for it tomorrow (weather permitting   ),  but I think a good chance was missed to take bunker maintenance down a notch.

[JESII]

Jim,

Do you not see this as a move in the right direction?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JES,
In some ways, yes. In others, no.

[JESII]

In what ways is this not at least a first step towards the treatment of bunkers as legitimate hazards?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JES,
I didn't mean to say it wasn't a first step. I'm referring to what I said earlier about the Augusta syndrome.  

[JESII]

I'll go look.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()