[Michael Moore]

Behold my crew at the bottom of the second green at Yale Golf Course. What you see eats into the green at a substantial angle - it is the "cape green". One of them is practicing outside the bunker, but they are both in it.



Deciding whether and where to challenge this hazard, and attempting to do it, is about as exciting as it gets on the golf course.

But what about this recovery? I found myself in a bunker fifteen feet beneath the eighth green and just blindly slapped it up there along with some good wishes.

Is there a universal inverse relationship between the fun of the challenging a hazard and the fun of recovering from it?

[JR Potts]

They both look like fun to me....that is, unless I'm not getting rolled on that hole!

[Ryan Crago]

michael,

thats the first photo i've seen of the 2nd green @ Yale... i love seeing that bank cut so short.. any idea how they maintain it?  whats the grade on the slope?

[Doug Siebert]

Is there a universal inverse relationship between the fun of the challenging a hazard and the fun of recovering from it?

I'd say no.  Sure, it is pretty blah to challenge a deep ravine for example and fail to execute and then have to actually climb down in the thing, hope to find your ball and then hope to find some way of hacking it back up into play or taking an unplayable or lost ball otherwise.  But part of the charm of challenging things like the Road Bunker and the road on TOC #17 is the fun of getting to play the recovery.

That's why I don't listen to the caddie's advice of laying out 25 yards to the right and trying to get up and down for a par, even though I know the chance of hitting a 7i out of the wispy left rough directly over the Road Bunker at a back left pin and holding the green is almost nil.  The fun and challenge of chipping it off the blacktop and killing it into the bank and the reward of a properly executed shot leaving me with a tap in par was every bit the equal of the fun and challenge of the approach shot itself.

[AndrewB]

Is there a universal inverse relationship between the fun of the challenging a hazard and the fun of recovering from it?

I guess it depends on what you consider fun, but, I don't think such a relationship exists.  Recovering from a severe hazard often presents a shot so difficult that you can only hope to get close, but that sort of situation often comes with other considerations.  If the recovery is that difficult, should you consider playing to get down in three rather than two?  Since you're likely not going directly for the hole, are there other hazards or features to make sure to avoid in your recovery?  What is the best combination of a safe extraction from your current situation and agressive play at getting close to the hole?  Does the type of shot -- shape, trajectory, in addition to aim -- you are going to play change as you consider all of these things?

If a shot has me thinking that much, then it is challenging and I think it's fun.

I just recently signed up for the US Mid-Am qualifier at Yale and your picture has me counting the days.

[Dave Bourgeois]

IMO the potential of having to hit a recovery from such a spot is what makes the hole interesting/fun. I'd agree that hitting over a ravine where it is more likely that you would lose a ball is not as much fun because the risk is too great and it really takes options away from you.  

Getting up and down from that area would likely be much more memorable than three consecutive 2 putt pars.  That says fun to me!

[ForkaB]

To a few sort of players (i.e. GCA.com and our extended family) those kind of shots are interesting, fun, exciting and even memorable.  However, to players of Andrew B.'s quality they may be less so, since he has virtually no chance of getting up and down from there, so it is just a damage limitation excercise.  To the real hacker, it is a Marat-Sade/Clash sort of moment--"Should I stay or should I go?"

Without seeing the context of the hole, I'm not sure if this is good architecture or just OTT expressionism.

Rich

PS--Michael.  We're your "crew" from the Lollipop League of Munchkinland, or is the bunker really that deep?

R

[Mike_Sweeney]

PS--Michael.  We're your "crew" from the Lollipop League of Munchkinland, or is the bunker really that deep?

Richard,

As has been mentioned by FatBaldyDrummer a few times, the guy in the blue shirt is rather large.   Bob Huntley is in route to my apartment and will be able to verify the depth this afternoon.

Here is a different angle from Ran's review. Please note all the work done by Scott Ramsey.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Mike

I think it's better now, but I'm not sure and I'll defer to Huntley's opinion.

Rich

PS--make sure you provide Bob with a ration of hardtack and grog just in case he gets stuck in that bunker for some time....

R

[cary lichtenstein]

I'm playing Yale today, been soooo looking forward to it

[Dan_Callahan]

While it is fun to take a crack at the green from the bunker at #2, that isn't always the best play. A good golfer can give it a shot. The more prudent play for most of us is to turn 90 degrees to the right and pitch back to the fairway. That leaves a chip down the length of the green.

At both 2 and 8, there are bunkers on both sides of the green, leaving very little margin for error with your recovery shot. While it may be embarassing to admit defeat and hit away from the green, I would bet that on 9 out of 10 occasions it would lead to the better score.

I played with a guy who was even par going into 8. After a good tee shot, he dumped his second into the right bunker. He went up, over and down for his third, hacked into the hill with his fourth, and on and on until he walked away with a 9!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

I think it's an interesting question.

One that has to be viewed in the context of the visual presented to the golfer as he addresses his approach shot as well as the visual presented by what he faces with the recovery.

The golfer's mind has adequate and immediate recall with respect to how he got to where he is, and as a result, there's an element of "why did I make that decision, or execute so poorly, combined with the prospect of the task that lies ahead.

All of these factors are related.

Now, the golfer must regroup, mentally and physically for the challenge that lies ahead.

Who isn't most proud of their miracle recovery from a dire location ?

It's one of the highlights of anyone's round.

And, who hasn't had their hopes and round dashed by a foolish mistake or poor execution, resulting in the need for a miraculous recovery.

So, yes, the recovery shot is certainly interesting and exciting.

As to fun, that's in the mind of the beholder.

I happen to like extracating myself from the jaws of doom.

[Michael Moore]

Bump honoring the current Yale theme.

How deep is too deep?

[Mark McKeever]

I think that's hole 8 correct?  Left greenside bunker?

Mark

[Tom Dunne]

Mark, no, that's #2. #8 has a similar bunker on the left, only deeper....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Had nearly the exact same shot at the Quarry up in Minnesota last week.  It is a shot you talk about in the bar afterwards, no doubt.  And it was fun to whack hard, and still see the ball just barely clear the slope to get on the green.  Of course, it hit at a low angle and bounded to the far fringe.

So, my take is, once per course, which might translate to once per year for the average golfer would be plenty to make a course memorable.  Used too often as a theme and it would go beyond the basic outlines of normal golf skill. Even PGA West only has this depth in a few locations, and its more than enough.

And, I would never go out of my way to build it, but if, like the Quarry, it exists naturally (or unnatural via mining in that case) I would leave the one or two examples, but strive to cut the green down or raise the bunker if it occurred too often.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I want to add another, sobering perspective to this conversation.

Modern day golfers have become wimps and complainers.

When this bunker was built and introduced the sand wedge was about 9 years away from being created and the Lob wedge about 60 years from being introduced.

Hence, the golfers in 1925-6 were playing Yale and encountering those bunkers, only armed with the equivalent of a pitching wedge.

That had to make the bunkers at Yale even more daunting

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Armed with a pitching wedge, how much more complaining would a golfer in 1926 have to do in order to register roughly the same complaint as a golfer using a lob wedge in 2013?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

Armed with a pitching wedge, how much more complaining would a golfer in 1926 have to do in order to register roughly the same complaint as a golfer using a lob wedge in 2013?

Michael,

Obviously you wouldn't know, but golfers in 1926 didn't complain and they played far more penal courses with far less sophisticated equipment.

They were golfers, not whiners and morons

[Thomas Dai]

Saw Seve on TV confronted with a bunker shot not dissimilar to this once. He didn't try to splash it out, he just hit a blade 9-iron off the back foot into the bank and one-bounced the ball to a few feet from the cup. Only took him a few seconds to work out what to do and then to execute it. His playing partners and their caddies all had broad smiles and were shaking their heads in amazement after he'd played the shot. Can't remember if he holed the putt, being Seve he probably did. Only one Seve though.
All the best.

[Tom_Doak]

I suppose that was before YouTube.  Damn. 

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat -

Armed with a pitching wedge, how much more complaining would a golfer in 1926 have to do in order to register roughly the same complaint as a golfer using a lob wedge in 2013?

Michael,

Obviously you wouldn't know, but golfers in 1926 didn't complain and they played far more penal courses with far less sophisticated equipment.

They were golfers, not whiners and morons

Patrick, yes they did. Haven't you reviewed any club minutes from back then? It isn't tough to find complaints about unfairness of features like deep bunkers, cross-bunkers, water hazards etc. and lots of features were wiped out back then.  Things may not have changed as much as you think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The Sand Wedge and Lob Wedge changed alot of things about playing golf.

Think of playing without the benefit of a Sand and Lob Wedge, at Yale and elsewhere.




I tend to think that golf in the 20's was not so democratic with an individual or oligarchy at the helm.

[Thomas Dai]

I suppose that was before YouTube.  Damn. 

Tom,

Another Seve special, also alas way before the days of youtube, was when he was right up against the back lip of an admittedly relatively shallow bunker. He turned his old Ping Anser putter around in his hands so that the toe of the putter was pointed towards the ground. He then hit down hard right through the back lip of the bunker into the ball which proceeded to scuttle through the bunker, up the front lip and out onto the green! Again, he only took him a few seconds to work out what to do and then to execute it. Pure genius. As I said above, only one Seve though.

All the best.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Is this the only bunker face that is mowed so closely?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()