Steep sand-faced bunkers

[Rick Shefchik]

During a recent round at Troy Burne (Tom Lehman signature course near Hudson, Wis., designed with Michael Hurdzan and Dana Fry), my wife hit a shot that buried near the top of a sand-faced greenside bunker, the face of which must have been at least 15 feet high. (The green itself -- #16, on a 600-yard par 5 -- sits on a plateau well above the fairway; the top of the bunker is level with the putting surface.)

What followed was something I've never seen before. My wife is kind of small (5'2) and the face of this bunker dwarfed her; she had to descend to her ball from the top of the bunker, which was oddly shaped in itself. Rather than having an overhanging lip, the sand was rounded off over the top of the bunker and extended a foot or two towards the green; the effect was sort of a waterfall of sand. My wife carefully eased her way down the face to her ball, trying not to fall or to cause an avalanche; the sand was firm enough to hold her up, but as she dug her feet in to take a stance, she sunk in to her shins, as sand tumbled down to the bottom of the bunker. From this position, it was all she could do to make a swing that dislodged her ball, which went forward a couple of feet, then rolled back down to the bottom of the bunker.

The Donald Ross thread got me to thinking: This bunker might have been better both visually and functionally if it had had a sod wall. Oddly enough, there's a similar bunker in front of the previous hole -- a short par 3 -- that does have a sod wall.

The height was not the issue to me, but rather the playability and the maintanence. We had a hell of a time trying to rake it, and I noticed that Troy Burne has other steep-faced bunkers (though not this dramatic) that are currently under repair from recent rains.

I've never seen a bunker quite like this one before. Is this type of bunker common elsewhere? Is this bad design, or lots of fun?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Rick

There is the famous 30-40 foot high bunker out about 180 yards or so into the dogleg at the 4th(?) at Sandwich (Royal St. Georges).  A (possibly) apochryphal story relates as to how some pro got into a similar situation as your wife, in an Open, took a swing, failed to get his ball out, got off balance, and fell down the slope to the bottom, head over heels.  He had to DQ himself as he could not reliably count the number of penalty strokes he needed to take as his club touched the bunker on numerous occasions whilst he was tumbling.

UFF-DA!

Rich

[Steve Okula]

Rich,

I don't have the rule book infront of me, but I'm sure that you are allowed to ground your club in a hazard if the purpose is to keep your balance. Probably the golf pro would not be penalized for falling down and grounding his club incidentally.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Steve

You are right vis a vis the current rules, but I am pretty sure that the rules were differrent when the incident I reported took place.  I think, in fact, that the wording, which now allows a get out clause "in case you are falling arse over tit" was inserted specifically in regard to the Sandwich case.

Dave S

Isn't (or wasn't--I think it is NLE) the "Maiden" another hole?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve,
Rich did use the word apocryphal in describing the incident and the shoe fits in this instance. The first exception to Rule 13-4 contains the answer to your post and is used by the USGA an the R&A.  

Sounds like an interesting fate awaits any who happen to find that bunker. I once did the slide and tumble in a steep one and carried away half the sand that was in the bunker when I climbed out. I'm thankful that the caddie did the raking.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Rick;

Yeah, that Dana Fry sure likes to build visually arresting bunkers and seems willing to try to experiment with different styles depending on the site.  

Frankly, I think that's encouraging, because too many architects develop a bunker "style" and use it ad nauseum in their travels.  

In the case of the bunker in question, my gut feeling from your description is that I'd stick with my philosophical bent of wanting to see bunkers play as hazards.

Of course, I probably wouldn't object if they were snake and rat filled pits of pestilence, so long as they served their strategic and functional purpose, with no disrespect or lack of sympathy to your wife's predicament.  Bunkers shouldn't be pretty....or necessarily "safe".  

[Steve Lapper]

Rick,

There is an interesting dynamic at work here. Hurzdan/Fry have created a sheet of material (type and name escape me at present) that they've patented for a steep bunker wall. At Hamilton Farm, We have several bunker faces with a 55+ degrees and the steepness precludes any golfer from using any swing or strategy remotely conventional. I'm not sure a plugged lie is even playable in terms of getting the ball out of the hazard.

Hurzdan and Fry have begun to use this in nearly every new course design they complete and have specific instructions for the type of sand to fill. I'll try to find out the name of the patented material.

[Steve Okula]

Mike,

Not a bunker, but a lake at the Lost City course in South Africa was designed to be infested with crocodiles. Now that's what I call a hazard.

(Another cheap Gary Player gimmick, of course.)

[brad_miller]

Have seen a ball "LOST" into the face of the back left greenside bunker on #16 at Hudson Nat'l (Fazio) maybe he does build real hazards Thankfully it wasn't mine

[tmb]

Where does an architect draw the line between unique and ridiculous? Golf should be challenging, rewarding and fun. Also, if the bunker takes more time to maintain from a playability and maintenance level to whose purpose does the bunker design serve?

[JakaB]

The unique and ridiculous can serve as eye candy for the architectural diabetic.

[SL_Solow]

slapper;  there are several competing materials, one goes under the name of Bunkerwall (sp?).  I've heard mixed results.  Anybody have first hand experience

[Mike_Cirba]

JakaB, Steve, and Slapper all make good points that there is a very thin line between a visually dynamic bunker that is there as a "novelty" and a bunker that is more in the historical spirit of the game as a very "uncertain" place of punishment and repentance.

I've seen both, and sometimes the distinctions can blur.  Brad Miller makes a good point about Fazio, because he also tends to use steep, sand-faced upslopes oftimes, and they can certainly play as hazards (most complaints with his bunkers have to do with positioning and context as opposed to the difficulty of the bunkers themselves, except in his "restorations").  

But, when I hear complaints that a particular bunker is too severe, I also go back to look at old photos of some of the bunkers that existed or were built early in the last century.  My LORD, those things were fearsome, and that was before the advent of 60 degree wedges, and such.  

You know, we go on and on about reintroducing strategy in the game, and courses are lengthened beyond 7,200 yards, fairways are narrowed, roughs grown, trees planted, greens cut to dangerous levels, and water is increasingly used to create "challenge".

Yet, does anyone else find it quite ironic that bunkers, which were historically used to create strategic interest, have generally been neutered to a great extent in modern golf through club technology, assiduous conditioning, consistent sands and other bunker materials, shallowness, complaints about lack of fairness with anything resembling less than a perfect, flattish lie, cleaned up edges and surrounds, and even watering to create "firmness"?

When it's preferable to be in the bunker than in the rough, then they are simply serving as visual color contrasts.

And THAT is my ultimate definition of eye candy.

[Steve Lapper]

slapper;  there are several competing materials, one goes under the name of Bunkerwall (sp?).  I've heard mixed results.  Anybody have first hand experience

SL

I like your initials....It is Bunkerwall, i think. My experiences with it are mostly very good. At Hamilton where the use of it is quite extensive, I've found it to be fair, but the quality of the sand is such that I've never had a plugged lie on the steepest faces. If it were to plug, it wouldn't come close to fair.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
The rule was modified to include "falling"  in 1992.  

[Dave_Miller]

What followed was something I've never seen before. My wife is kind of small (5'2) and the face of this bunker dwarfed her; she had to descend to her ball from the top of the bunker, which was oddly shaped in itself. Rather than having an overhanging lip, the sand was rounded off over the top of the bunker and extended a foot or two towards the green; the effect was sort of a waterfall of sand. My wife carefully eased her way down the face to her ball, trying not to fall or to cause an avalanche; the sand was firm enough to hold her up, but as she dug her feet in to take a stance, she sunk in to her shins, as sand tumbled down to the bottom of the bunker. From this position, it was all she could do to make a swing that dislodged her ball, which went forward a couple of feet, then rolled back down to the bottom of the bunker.

Rick:
There is such a thing as an unplayable lie.  Nearest point of relief, no nearer the hole.
While your wife would have had a penalty shot, the next shot could have been outside the bunker and hitting onto the green as opposed to possibly hitting the bunker shot back into the face of the bunker, from the floor of the bunker.

Best
Dave

[archie s.]

Bunkerwoll, a product to hold sand together on steep faced bunkers together. It is interesting that the superintendent at Hamilton Farms (Tim Crist) is the developer/owner of the company that patented the product. He met Hurdzen/Fry, to the best of my knowledge,when they were building Sand Barrens here at the southern tip of NJ>

As to bunkers with steep faces, gotta love them, but please don't let the ball plug. If it plugs in the wall, except in unusual circumstances, I feel the design or material being used is at fault, and should be exorcized post haste!!!!

Bunkers, make em HAZARDS!!!!!!!!

[Steve Lapper]

Bunkerwoll, a product to hold sand together on steep faced bunkers together. It is interesting that the superintendent at Hamilton Farms (Tim Crist) is the developer/owner of the company that patented the product. He met Hurdzen/Fry, to the best of my knowledge,when they were building Sand Barrens here at the southern tip of NJ>

As to bunkers with steep faces, gotta love them, but please don't let the ball plug. If it plugs in the wall, except in unusual circumstances, I feel the design or material being used is at fault, and should be exorcized post haste!!!!

Bunkers, make em HAZARDS!!!!!!!!

Archie,

Very interesting point. As I alluded to above, I couldn't agree with you more. As I came to HFGC late, Tim Chrsit has been replaced with Paul Ramina, ex of Riveria CC.....and he's doing a good job so far. Any time, you want to play up that way....i'd be honored to have you.

Steve

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
Taking relief outside a bunker is a stroke and distance penalty. Taking an unplayable in a bunker requires a drop in the bunker, no nearer the hole, one stroke penalty.  

[Steve Okula]

I started using Bunker-woll this year. I have it in about a dozen bunkers with steep faces prone to wash outs.

I have found it to be useful, but not a cure-all. In very hard rains, the sand comes down off it like anywhere else, but at least it keeps the underlying clay from contaminating the sand and blocking drains.

More disturbing is that the material is beginning to surface in places where the sand is thin. One of the supposed advantages to the Bunker-woll is that you only need a thin 1"-2" layer of sand to cover it on the slopes, so you avoid plugged ball situations, but if you do it like that you'll have problems with regular raking and player traffic disturbing the material.

There is no substitute for correct construction in the first place. High, steep, faces can be done if consideration is given to surface drainage and no water is allowed to come into the bunker from over the top. That's the single most frequent mistake I see. I don't know why there are so few architects who grasp this simple principle. Harry Colt knew it, for example, but I have seen Tom simpson bunkers with this elementary mistake.

[Henry_W]

I like the Australian practice (Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, et al) where the sand on the steep face of the bunker is packed tightly, or mixed with clay.  The ball rarely buries in these faces, but bounces off and comes to rest in the flat, center of the bunker, which is raked.  These bunkers have an awesome appearance, but maintain their playability.  Does anyone know why this practice isn't followed in the United States?

[henrye]

If one hits into one of these "ridiculous" bunkers can one not simply claim an unplayable lie, go back to where you hit, re-hit and take a one-stroke penalty.  I have seen this twice.  Once on a Hurdzan and Fry course, where I lined my drive low into the face of a 15 foot haystack bunker.  The ball plugged deep into the face about 10 feet up.  I couldn't have hit the ball if I tried.  I actually had to bend down from above and dig the ball out.

On another occasion, I was playing with my cousin when his ball disappeared into a very soft sand bunker.  We had to dig blindly for the ball with the rake as there was no mark in the bunker where the ball hit.

Both shots resulted in us re-hitting our tee shots to lie 3.

One thing about these bunkers/incidents is that they always make for great conversation after the rounds.

[Dave_Miller]

Dave,
Taking relief outside a bunker is a stroke and distance penalty. Taking an unplayable in a bunker requires a drop in the bunker, no nearer the hole, one stroke penalty.  

Jim:
Correct but taking the drop outside the bunker on the same line in effect yields the same result as the distance part of the penalty is going to be very small and certainly sounds like it would have been an easier shot.
Cheers,
Dave

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
Actually you don't get to drop outside the bunker "on the same line". The only relief offered a player when taking a ball out of the bunker is to "Play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played.

She could have dropped "on the Line" or within two club lengths if she stayed in the bunker but as you can clearly see by now, she must go back to the original ball's location if she wants relief outside the bunker.

If she hit the original shot from one foot outside the bunker she can drop right there and proceed. She may have hit the shot from 120 yds. out, which is where she must drop if taking the "ball unplayable" relief outside the bunker.