Hazards within Hazards

[JESII]

The private clubs can do this much more so because of $$ and manpower -- but keep this in mind a Wyoming public course does it now and has no issue with it.

How exactly did the superintendednt and/or the management committee explain to you that they had no issue with this approach?

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

You seem to be missing my point big time.

I simply said -- read this r-e-a-l slow OK (no disrespect intended) that when you have equipment of the type we have today (the 60 & 64 degree wedges) the whole meaning of bunkers is lost for the better player. They simply see them as the best possible location for scoring because of the CERTAINTY they offer. Bunkers are about uncertainty and that may mean unplayable lies in them and forced stances / lies, you name it.

The folks in Wyoming were not about to tear out all the sage brush -- at CONSIDERABLE TIME AND MONEY -- when they could simply include such items as natural features with sand included as well. I commend them for being so smart and to Ken Kavanaugh specifically the designer in using this approach.

You are hung up the argument of maintenance of said items when frankly I don't see the maintenance argument as being a factor. I simply see it as a red-herring you are throwing forward in keeping bunkers the plain jane vanilla design item they are today. The sage brush in Wyoming will likely stay in place and forcle little in terms of dollars for proper care.

You always skip over the fact at how penal and fierce bunkers in the UK and Ireland are but when people come back to the States they prefer their 101 level bunkers here.

Equipment improvements have stripped bunkers of their purpose. It's not that demanding to offer some unique alternate ways. I'm not suggesting each and evey bunker be this way -- but the great individual bunkers that are often feasted here on GCA have some unique offering that goes far beyond being completely flat and ornamental in its role.

I can see that you are better player because you are constantly focusing on the "playability" perspective. Guess what friend -- bunkers aren't always playable and they do inflict punishment -- sometimes severe. I see nothing wrong with that because bunkers have no meaning in so many ways -- that's why you have seen the explosion of water hazards into design but unfortunately water is too often a dead-end event.

JES II, think of bunkers as being RETURNED to what they once were. The modification of their role here in the States has come from so many years passing that people today -- possibly you -- are brainwashed to believe that what exists today is 100$ acceptable. Give that a thought before replying OK.

[JESII]

Matt,

What about my comments supporting non-maintained bunkers tells you I want "plain-Jane vanilla bunkers"?

When I speak of maintenance, I'm not referring to the bushes, I'm talking about how much money the club will save if they decide they do not actually have to go out every morning and rake their bunkers. I think bunkers should be penal hazards because of the uncertainty of lie the player will have.

It seems to be you who has missed that point.

When you notice me "focussing on the 'playability' perspectives" of these conversations I wonder if you have ever once heard me arguing for the "fairness" side. Find one example, please of me fitting that stereo-type because I'd be interested to remember it. My position here is that there is an easier solution to the problem you see. I agree with you that there is a problem, I agree with you that increased uncertainty is a good solution. I disagree with the notion of planting bushes in a bunker as a solution when simply taking away the rakes will do the job, only better.

Tell me, who is going to suffer more, the 20 handicap that ends up behind one of these freakin' plants, or the scratch that can realistically get out and over it.

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

How about this quaint notion -- that fat ass golfers get off their butt and assist with the raking !

Is that too much to ask for. For God's sake must the course maintenance people do everything ?

I didn't say PLANT anything. I simply said to take what is there and leave it as part of the bunker. Try to follow the words I offered -- not the ones you fit into my mouth.

That's what the folks did at Rochelle Ranch -- a course loaded with the 20+ handicap types you mentioned and not a word I have heard from the two times I have visited has said a bad word about what they have there. Ditto what existed to the left of #10 and #11 at BB -- before they sought to cleanse the place of anything that would impinge on playability -- which is just a code word for fairness IMHO.

Guess what -- bunkers aren't suppose to be fair. If you want fairness -- stay on the fairway.

This silly notion about 20+ handicappers is a smoke screen. Frankly, these people have less of an issue than the better players who always bitch and moan about anything that lends itself to discomfort.

I'm not suggesting that bunkers become 100% dead-end locations. I am saying that items within them that are natural and fixed to where they are located is perfectly acceptable. I'm not suggesting that some sort of redwood tree be PLANTED right in the middle of such bunkers.

Raking carried out by players is appropriate because future position should not be worse off than what was there previously. That's why the notion of no rakes is simply Calvinistic in its approach to the max.

If people wish to follow the Oakmont credo with the furrow bunkers -- or what Jack did at Muirfield Village with this year's event that's fine.

[ForkaB]

Rich:

You missed my point -- I am not talking about having an arboretum planted within the confines of a bunker. I'm just suggesting that the 100% all the time clean and manicured look needs to be a bit altered -- especially on short holes where the distance equation is less so.

Having brush grow within the confines of a hazard is acceptable -- ditto the desire to decrease the size of certain points within a bunker that will effect stance and lie.

Matt

You misread me, compadre!  I said nothing about an "arboretum."  I was talking about exactly what you were talking about--I just disagree with you as to its value as an architectural feature, for the reasons I gave in my original post.

Rich

[JESII]

One of the things I noticed on my recently concluded mountain time zoe trip was the practice of inserting sage bushes and other items within the confines of a hazard.

Tell me Matt,

What do you mean with that word "inserting" there? This quote is from your initial post on this thread. Are you suggesting this meant to insert a bunker around a clump of grass? Try selling that one pardna.

[JESII]

JES II:

How about this quaint notion -- that fat ass golfers get off their butt and assist with the raking !

So you are one of these guys looking for a perfect lie everytime you get into a bunker.

Tell me more about these sage bushes we are now building our bunkers around, how tall is the gress? How wide is the body of the plant?

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

My amigo -- look at any number of the bunkers in the UK & Ireland -- especially on the top tier tracks. They are often unique because they fail to be 100% predictable in terms of their size, angle to play from and because they might contain some natural items -- gorse and the like -- within their boundaries.

How is having such natural items within their boundaries unfair or unncessary. I'd like to hear your argument.

You see, I believe, bunkers should contain situations where an easy to escape route may happen and the possibility that you may truly be trapped is also possible.

JES II:

The "insertion" you speak about doesn't mean the folks at a course went to Home Depot and had them transported to the course.

I meant these items were pre-existing and completely natural / appropriate to their meaning for that respective course.

The sage bushes vary in height and width. At Rochelle Ranch you have plenty of room to play full shots because people were smart enough not to have them encroach to the point where unplayable lies will happen with each visit. But such situations cannot and should not be ruled out either as is the case.

I meant "insertion" from the literal standpoint that such items are part and parcel of what is there and that such bunkers can be free to use these items as needed.

Onto your other attempted point ...

I'm not looking for a perfect lie -- but from the stand point of equity I do believe the players that come after other players should not have worse of a lie simply because their visit followed that group. It's no different than when two balls lie so close to one another when in a bunker that the lie of the second ball is put into the same position as it was before the first ball was played.

The furrow rakes is acceptable because of its consistency in its preparation -- not outcome. You would hold that if the first group gets the benefit of a smoother surface and then walks back and forth and creates a mess with their feet then the next group should simply take it on the chin. That's BS and I would hope you know that.

However, if a ball gets lodged under a sage brush or the player is forced to move his feet because of limited space because of these items then I see that as being completely appropriate.

The issue is not about sand being raked or NOT raked, but the idea that natural items can be included into the mixture that are part and parcel of that respective course and its particular location. I didn't say every hole should have such a situation but that a designer should consider its usage when appropriate and tied to the natural conditions that exist.

[TEPaul]

"You see, I believe, bunkers should contain situations where an easy to escape route may happen and the possibility that you may truly be trapped is also possible."

Matt Ward:

I completely agree with that philosophy about bunkers. I call it an "iffiness" factor.

But face it, bunkers can accomplish that "iffiness" or inherent unpredicabilty in two entirely separate ways and probably with equal measure.

The first way which you are speaking about on here is the manner in which their sand surfaces are prepared and maintained (or not), and the second way is in the inherent structure of their ARCHITECTURE.

For instance, most all Raynor bunkers I've ever seen generally have flat and highly maintained sand surfaces which provide almost always good and consistent lies for the golf ball. But how would you like a shot out of one of them where the ball is resting nicely on the sand surface but just happens to be right up against one of those 10 foot high almost vertical grass bunker faces that many of them have?

Raynor bunkers are architecturally "iffy" and unpredicatable even if their sand surfaces almost never are, while other styles that aren't so architecturally unpredictable have stuff in their sand surfaces that makes that area unpredictable.

Either way it will get the attention of thinking golfers when it comes to avoiding them.

The point here is that today it seems to be more than acceptable that bunkers can be architecturally iffy while it has become almost generally unacceptable if their sand surfaces are for some reason.

At least there still remains some trade-off when it comes to bunkering today.

[JESII]

Matt,

In my scenario, why would the first group have a clean, smooth lie?

[ForkaB]

Matt

As you know I live 24/7 in ht eUK and play most of my golf here.  I can't think of a bunker that had gorse or anything plant-like growing in it in all my 25-30 years of experience playing here.  You must have been unlucky, or maybe you hit it so far you have found bunkers that I never knew existed?

My point was that when you have bunkers which entail too much of a penalty, the experienced golfer will avoid them, and they become non-hazards, just eye candy, and the strategic options of playing the course are diminished.  You might as well turn the bunker into a pond, like they did on the 16th at Garden City....

The same holds true when the bunkers are naturally penal (without vegetation).  Experienced and/or good players will avoid them like the plague (viz. Tiger in his last 3 Open wins), so they become impotent and irrelevant.

PS--as I think I said above, gorse (and broom) does not naturally grow in pure sand.  It need sturdier soil to prosper.  Marram grass does grow in sand, but I do not even think that a golfing stgud like you would like a regular diet of hitting out of sand infested with marram.  Just think of the right hand side of the 8th at Cypress Point......

[TEPaul]

"The same holds true when the bunkers are naturally penal (without vegetation).  Experienced and/or good players will avoid them like the plague (viz. Tiger in his last 3 Open wins), so they become impotent and irrelevant."

Goodale, you brainless baboon, that remark only proves you will never understand golf course architecture.

Tiger Woods, perhaps the best player in the history of the universe takes the time to develop an amazingly clever and unique strategy that no one else has the sense to try and executes it to perfection simply to avoid those St Andrews and Hoylake bunkers totally and you call them impotent and irrelevent???

That's beyond the pale your baboonness. Why do you think he came up with that strategy and executed it so perfectly if those OC and Hoylake bunkers really were impotent and irrelevent to him or anyone else?

My God, you are hopeless.

[SPDB]

TE Paul - What the heck are these things?

[TEPaul]

They are architecturally "iffy" and ARCHITECTURALLY unpredictable. What do they look like to you?  

[JESII]

SPDB,

How recent is that picture?

[SPDB]

JES II - 8 days ago.

TE Paul - They looked like Cacti to me. What the heck are they doing 1) in a bunker, 2) in Southern Jersey?

[JESII]

I remember a larger cluster than what is shown. Am I thinking of the next bunker?

[SPDB]

JES - I don't recall any appearing in the further bunker. When were you last there? My picture also might be cutting off the larger part of the colony.

[JESII]

Most recently in early May, but my memories of this large cluster was more from the late 90's when I was there caddying. Perhaps there is an effort to minimize the encroachment, or it could be my memory is not what it never was.  

[SPDB]

What is it?

[JESII]

I think South Jersey can be home to some types of cactus. Am I wrong?

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

That stuff is a new hybrib strain of grass developed at Rutgers U. known as Brobdingnagian Bent.

[SPDB]

Hey Swift(y) - What is it really?

[henrye]

Matt

As you know I live 24/7 in ht eUK and play most of my golf here.  I can't think of a bunker that had gorse or anything plant-like growing in it in all my 25-30 years of experience playing here.  You must have been unlucky, or maybe you hit it so far you have found bunkers that I never knew existed?

 

Rich, I think Matt is talking about vegetation within the "boundary" of the hazard.  For example, heather growth on the right fairway bunker on #2 at Walton Heath Old.  The heather has grown up and over the face and right side of the bunker creating a cave like overhang.  

[Jason Blasberg]

Secondly, it looks ugly and unnatural--gorse bushes just do not grow in pits of sand in the wild, at least in what I have seen.

Rich:

The yucca in the bunkers at Prairie Dunes generate a lot of criticism.  I do believe the yucca grow naturally there and I'd be interested to know if anyone out there knows if the yucca were planted in the bunkers or just popped up over time?

Jason