[Patrick_Mucci]

It seems that all too often, strips of rough intervene between the fairway and bunkers, preventing balls that are rolling toward the bunkers from entering them.

I've also noticed that many clubs have these same strips just prior to water hazards.  These are not strips of rough caused by maintainance problems, but deliberate, broad buffers, whose purpose is the ensnarement of a golf ball.  
A safety net, if you will.

It seems, that in the UK, the opposite occurs.  
That the grass is mown tightly, right up to the hazard.

I know of clubs that deliberately inserted these features.

At a recent green committee meeting that I attended, a proposal was put forth, that the greens be mowed right up to the bunkers such that balls would not be saved by the grass, but would continue their journey into the bunker.

Several greens at NGLA have this feature, which I favor.

Have the "FAIRNESS" features outlived their usefullness ?  
Is it time to return to the game when maintainance features weren't allowed to frustrate the intended architecture and strategic importance of bunkers and other hazards ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Yes.

One of the best at this (although I've only seen the course on television) has to be Royal Melbourne where the low fairway cut abruptly transitions (as well as collects) into fearsome hazards.

[Matt_Ward]

Agreed.

Among courses that have (re)adopted this philosophy is Plainfield CC (NJ). Prior to the involvement of Gil Hanse the second fairway bunker on the left side of #1 was "protected" by long rough grass. Almost impossible to get into the bunker from the back tees unless you hit it on the fly.

Today -- the fairway has been brought closer to the bunker and the possibility does in fact exist for balls to scoot into the hazard. When I played Plainfield a few weeks ago I hit a driver on #1 and was directly opposite the bunker -- a slight pull and I would have ran right into it.

Place the blame many times on club leadership for opting to go with the wall-to-wall rough look that takes away the role many hazards were envisioned to have. I actually believe that less rough makes many courses play even more demanding -- no more buffers or a better word -- "cushions" to protect oneself from finding even more demanding locations with miss hits.

[Michael_Burrows]

I argee that fairways should be cut up close to the bunker but still sometimes you can hit a good shot but due to the hard sloping fairways your shot finds the bunker so the fairway does not need to be cut right up to the bunkers in this case.

With the greens it is a different story. Image the guy that has to mow those greens that are cut right up to the bunker. He is scared out of his mind that he is going to go into the bunker. So he has to stop on the green or turn on the green thus causing the greens to wear and stress out.  

[Bruceski]

Actually, on many American courses, finding a fairway bunker is a better outcome than finding the rough. In short, many fairway bunkers are not very punitive -- they leave a fairly predictable shot. Thus, rough rimming a fairway bunker doesn't always "protect" the player from an inferior result.

[TEPaul]

Yes, no question!

The odd thing is I was looking through some old course photos (American courses) from the old days and today and almost all the photos showed these "buffers".

I don't know why--they shouldn't have been there back then and they shouldn't be there now!

This is not really an historical question or a complex one today--it's basically commonsense and sensible and effective architectural thinking. Those "buffers" should not be there.

Our super has intimated they should be there for maintenance reason but frankly, I just ain't buying that line anymore! This is no more than the height of grass for Chris-sakes! It just ain't complicated!

Those "buffers" should not be there! It's a no brainer! Is there something going on in Europe we haven't figured out for some reason?

Of course NOT!

[Chris Kane]

Yes!

Having a strip of rough between the fairway and the bunker is unnatural and could defeat the purpose of having the hazard there.

At Metropolitan (site of the 2001 Matchplay), they mowed greens right to the edge of the bunkers.  It added something extra to the approach shot when the greens were rock hard that week.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Burrows,

They seem to be able to do it successfully at NGLA, why should it be so hard to do elsewhere ?

Especially, if that's the way the course was designed and intended to play.

Perhaps TRI-PLEXING isn't the best way to cut greens !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas, et.al.,

I'm not talking about an 18 inch or 3 foot strip, I'm talking about yards of rough as a buffer.

Even GCGC has fallen into this mode, and hopefully, they're on the road back out of it.

The catchers mitt philosophy of saving a ball from a fate it was intended to suffer, has to go.

Do your clubs have this feature ?

[Glenn Muckley]

I can certainly understand the position regrarding longer grass around bunkers, but around water hazards?  

There are many reasons why we, in the US, leave buffers around water not the least of which is environmental concerns.  Many localities requriure buffers and no spay zones around watercourses set forth in IPMs.  Also, it is my oppinion that in the States we are currently moving toward integrating our golf with the surroundings.  In Europe the trend is moving in the
direction of Augusta-like maintenance.  If you disagree, just watch any European tour event.  Muirfield this week is the exception rather than the rule.

Tightly mown edges around water don't look natural, attract geese, and cost a bundle to maintain.

[TEPaul]

If a tight cut was to be done up to the bunkering on my course--Gulph Mills in Philadelphia--,particularly the fairway bunkering, what equipement would logically be used and what would that require in extra man-hours or whatever from the way it's done now?

Are there any other maintenance issues or problems involved in doing this as opposed to the way it's done now with the buffer cut around the bunkering?

[J_McKenzie (Guest)]

This is a discussion we recently had concerning the mowing patterns at a local club.  Everyone agreed that setting up the course to allow balls to run into bunkers would add interest and challenge to playing the course, but at what cost?  Well, depending on the style of the golf course, it can be considerable.  If there is a lot of slope going into the bunkers or considerable movement in the shaping of the bunkers (especially greenside bunkers), hand mowing is the only option.  That means a bigger maintenance staff and all the additional cost that goes with each employee.  I recently played a course that had as part of the maintenance staff a crew of eight whose only job was to fly-mow bunkers.  (This same club had a crew of three that rode around on a jetblower to blow sand off the fairways from manmade sand dunes.)  Many clubs just can't afford to do this, especially the daily-fees of the world.

I also believe comparing courses in the U.S. to certain courses in the U.K. or Australia is not quite apples to apples.  Links courses in the U.K. or courses such as Royal Melbourne are built in pure sand where perculation rates are high and draingage is not a major issue.  Depending on where you are in the U.S., the golf course could be built on clay or something less optimal than sand where these "buffers" are used to slow down water flow to prevent bunkers from washing out every time it rains.  Repairing wash-outs is another labor intensive endeavor and a 'maintenance' issue that has not been mentioned.  Also, different turf grasses (slow vs. fast growing) is something that would have to be considered.

With all this said, it would be nice to be able to set up courses with more of the design features to play as the the architect intended.  However, golf is a business and one that is becoming more competitive every day.  I believe it is the responsibility of today's architect to design with that thought in mind.

[Andy Hodson]

Where it is pragmatical (did I just invent a word?) to do so I would love to see the buffers eliminated.

One of the greatest defenses a course has is fear, esp. fear of the unknown. And the thought put in the player's mind that a ball hit in a certain direction may not stop, but may roll or bounce sideways, or continue forward into a hazard is one of the great challenges in golf. Lets get rid of the buffers, and in essence widen the fairways. Bunkers now percieved to be in fairways is another great mind(blank).

I think golf is better when the challenges are more mental or psychological than just physical. When they are is when, after a poor round, you can't wait to get another crack at the course.

Now if we could get rid of perfectly manicured bunkers, we may be on to something.

[Joel_Stewart]

I've been trying to study this exact subject for a year or so now and it boils down to where was the original rough line was.  I think over years the maintence crews have become lazy and tried to stop balls from rolling in bunkers.

My question is do architects understand rough lines and does a plan exist for crews to perform maintence?

I have this issue at Olympic riht now that the 6th hole has the only fairway bunker on the course and its surrounded by rough.  I've suggested that the rough line be cut back but its oddly shaped and I think they are unsure if the rough should boarder the left hand side of the bunker?

[Mark_Fine]

Weren't most "rough" bunkers as I call them vs. "fairway" bunkers on classic courses a result of a few things:
1) changes in the types of grass, and 2) single line irrigation systems, 3) growth of trees, and 4)fairway maintenance costs.   For these reasons, fairway widths on classic courses have been dramatically narrowed over the years leaving fairway bunkers "in the rough".

As we know, the classic courses were meant to be played "on the edges" not necessarily down the middle and the only way to restore that playing aspect is restore fairway widths!  

On the note about buffers, what about the collars around greens?  Aren't these just a result of mowing practices for greens?  Do green collars have a place in the game?  
Mark

[Rick Shefchik]

I think Bruceski has it exactly right: If your bunkers are truly hazards, then you want the buffers eliminated so that errant shots can find them. If your bunkers are not especially penal, the buffer strip is often a bigger hazard than the bunker itself.

It all depends on what you're thinking as the ball is descending. If you're thinking, "Get in the bunker!", it's the bunkers that need work, rather than eliminating the buffer strip. If you're thinking, "Stay out of the bunker!", then the strips should go.

[Michael_Burrows]

Patrick Mucci

I do not know of any courses that mow their greens with a Tri Plex.  BUT Tri Plex are used to roll greens which thus cause the same problem with wear and stress on greens.

I do feel that from a playing stand point that buffers should be removed no question and I agree with you that there should not be yards and yards between the green and the bunker.   All I am saying is that you have to consider what comes along with no buffers. Thats all.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I think that to incorporate it in the North American game is a wonderful idea.  While mateniance issues have been raised, this can work well in North America where the mowing does not surround the bunker.

Many of Muirfield's bunkers, which are in the fairway are surrounded by fairway level cut.  While this bunkering is not the most common form in North America, there is not reason that you cannot mow into the bunker and leave far side rough.

While I fear I failed to articulate my point, here is a picture of what I envision, in practice at Banff Springs.  This is a fairway bunker that is mowed on the front side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

J Mckenzie, et. al.,

When golf courses mowed their fairways with gang mowers I could understand the reluctance to get too close to the bunker, thus creating unintentionally or intentionally, the buffer zone of rough.

With more and more courses mowing fairways with tri-plex mowers, I can't find any excuses, other than the deliberate creation of a buffer zone, for not mowing closer to the bunker.

Around the greens, the additional cost walking mowers MAY incur are more than offset by agronomic and playability benefits.

Many of these buffers were deliberately created under the guise of fairness, others due to mowing patterns that can now be corrected with the use of modern equipment.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I completely agree with every single thing you said in that last post, as strange as that may sound to you!

Ben Dewar;

Is the hotel behind that bunker the place Jack Nickelson said; "Here's Johnny" in that hair-raising movie?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's not strange at all.

We probably agree on 95 % of the things in golf and golf architecture.

But, we sure have passionate if not heated debate on the other 5 % you're wrong on  

[Willie_Dow]

My goodness!

Isn't it great to see Pat and Tom on the same wave length.

Willie

[Mark_Fine]

There are very few "fairway" bunkers left in America.  I now call most of them "rough" bunkers.  

[Andrew_Roberts]

I would also like to see these things occur.

Around the greens wouldn't you have to need a flashed face on the bunker to cut the green close to the edge.  Aren't flashed faces more money to maintain?

Much like the Sandbelt courses.  

Now buffers on water hazards have a small purpose.  They speed up pace of play and for some people makes the game more enjoyalbe.  I don't know if I want to see the 15th at Augusta happen everywhere.  That would frustrate the living hell out of a lot of people.  But the idea would work and look very nice around creeks.  Kind of like the 13th at Augusta.  

And some water hazards are close enough to play.  They don't have to be expanded to have a higher strategic matter.  They are big enough as they are and should have a reasonable small buffer.

But the main idea of expanding hazards is a great thing for golf.

[Dan Herrmann]

After last week's PGA Champioinship at AAC, I think this thread deserves another look.  Every time you looked, you saw golf balls trundling into bunkers at AAC.  Honestly, to me it got fatiguing because the slope of the land seemed to have acted as a magnet, drawing balls into penal bunkers.

Cripes - does EVERY bunker need to have shaved surrounds with slopes that propel the ball to doom?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()