bunker depth

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played neighboring club not to long ago.  I mentioned to the pro where I belonged.  His response was that the fairway bunkers were too deep.  He said that it was not possible to reach the greens from them.   I was shocked.  It seems to me that there should be some penalty for hitting the ball in the wrong place.  I would rather have a fairway bunker than water.  At least in a bunker the next shot requires some thought.  How fast can i get the ball up?  Where should I land it so that I have the best shot into the green.  In the water you just drop the ball and have it.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I can remember the thrill, when I was younger and played rather better, of hitting a spoon shot out of a fairway bunker onto a green, but, I agree that a fairway bunker should cost even the good player at least half a shot.  The difficulty when a course has fairway bunkers set up to cost the professional a whole shot and I, as a hacker, get into the wrong part of one.  

[cary lichtenstein]

There has to be some penalty for hitting it in the wrong place. I have no problem with deep fairway bunkers

[Ed_Baker]

Tommy,

I have had this discussion scores of times at my club after the restoration project with members acosting me after a round demanding to know why "I" made the bunkers so deep.

My standard reply was that "I" didn't do a damn thing except find the original bunker floors, so if they were upset about the depth they have an issue with Donald Ross not 'Ol Bakey. I would also gently continue that given the ball and club technology in the 1920's compared with today's which era golfer was penalized more for hitting his ball in to a bunker ??

When some of the more persistent complainers wanted to debate further and question methodology demanding how "I" determined what the original bunker floor depth was, I referred them to our shaper and his reply was, " we dug until we hit soil instead of sand," very scientific.

Bunkers are a hazard, one of Ross' tenets was that he put his bunkers in places that the golfer could see on his way to the green, don't hit it there.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Depth of sand is another issue.  I remember someone saying that Gary Player had complained at some British links that the sand in the bunkers was too deep.  'We'll start digging right away, Mr Player.  See you again when we come out in Australia.'

[tonyt]

Nothing wrong with a great fairway bunker that offers a good player an opportunity to strive for the green from within. Some of these make for the very best fairway bunkers in all golf.

Plenty wrong with some formula that states that every bunker must be so.

Don't like it, don't hit into it. Sometimes, the severity of the bunker (or lack of it) is part of the strategy. To align bunkers away from these differences is to eliminate a degree of potential strategy, and like saying we should get rid of other facets such as holes where the green is better approached from one side than the other. Lets make everything so darn fair, we might as well play golf on a PC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Williamsen,

If a bunker doesn't present an impediment to advancing the ball and reaching the green, it's failed in its function.

As to being formulaic, I find nothing wrong with that.

Is it formulaic to have bunkers around greens, elevated tees ?

All too often the "F" word is used to condemn, in blanket fashion, common sense feature patterns, or the consistent configuration of features in relation to one another.  

I believe bunker depth is and will become a more critical design element, drainage permitting.

New hybrid clubs allow for simple extracation from most fairway bunkers.

Where is it written that golfers are entitled to an unimpeded or easy extracation from a fairway or greenside bunker ?

That's the weak argument for "fairness"

A golfer's inability to extracate himself from a bunker is directly proportional to the strategic significance of the bunker.

Make the extracation a routine shot and the bunker becomes a vestigal feature.

Where bunkers can't be deepened, fronting berms (elevated banks) should be considered as an additive.

In addition to depth, the static location of bunkers should be reviewed with an eye toward returning them to play, as intended by the architect.  OR, leaving them in their current position and adding additional, similar bunkers in the current DZ.

[Mike_Young]

A shorter course with deeper bunkers will win out over a longer course with shallow bunkers......IMO  I just wish they were used more to offset the new distance issues before length was added.  In most cases.

[Paul Carey]

Tommy,

Since you and I belong to one club in common (Four Streams) I know that you are used to fairway bunkers that are not only hazards but make you think about the how, where to play the second shot.   The severe bunker at the corner of the dogleg on #2; the bunkers to the right of #4 (miss them and take a shot at the green in two hit them and lay up short of the next set of cross bunkers); the deep cross bunkers at #12.  It makest you think and plan and a combination of deep bunkers and "not so deep bunkers"  creates solid strategic distinctions.

Paul

[Tommy Williamsen]

Positioning of the fairway bunkers is also important.  If the best angle is from the right side of the fairway, positioning the bunkers on the right side requires thought and accuracy.
On some doglegs placing a bunker on the inside of the dogleg that gives the player a chance for the heroic opportunity of carrying it.  Tillinghast cross bunkers on par fives are also great equalizers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't care how deep a bunker is.  

Are you saying that you're not a believer in the strategic significance of a bunker ?

I think the much more important issue is restraint in the numbers of bunkers.  I can't wait for the day when archies spend a few weeks f---ing up the land then build a fun course that doesn't rely on 100 bunkers to add interest.

If you removed the bunkers, what features would replicate their strategic influence ?

[Jordan Wall]

Pat,

In your last post, you said "If you removed the bunkers, what features would replicate their strategic influence ?"

First off, I do not like a bunch of bunkers bunched closely together in the same area.  
I think, as weird as this sounds, a bunker could and would replicate the strategic influence.
Why have four or five bunkers close together when you could have one big bunker serving the same purpose?
If there were one big bunker instead of many closely together, not only does it make it look better (IMO), but is a lot simpler then having four or five smaller bunkers in the same area as a big one would fit.  Wouldn't it be easier to maintain, one big bunker, then four or five small ones too?

[Mike_Cirba]

Pat,

Why have four or five bunkers close together when you could have one big bunker serving the same purpose?

Jordan,

One reason might be that the front edge lip would always be much closer to the golfer, necessitating a quickly rising escape which may or may not allow the player to reach their next hopeful target.  

[Tim Copeland]

I could build a bunker with all of you....except Sean

Tell the shirt folder to read up on a hazard

[John_Conley]

His response was that the fairway bunkers were too deep.  He said that it was not possible to reach the greens from them.  

I have also had discussions with strong players that seem to want more chances to separate themselves from average players.  In a shallow bunker the average golfer isn't likely to hit a green from 150 yards.  A PGA pro?  I'm guessing he has little trouble.

One friend went on and on about how he nutted a 3-wood that knifed through a gale to the center of a green.  He three-putted for bogey.  I asked why he didn't lay up short of the green where he'd have an easy up and down and he couldn't comprehend that a golf hole would be played that way.  Very few people could hit that tee shot he did and he wanted to be rewarded for it.

[Mike_Young]

His response was that the fairway bunkers were too deep.  He said that it was not possible to reach the greens from them.  

I have also had discussions with strong players that seem to want more chances to separate themselves from average players.  In a shallow bunker the average golfer isn't likely to hit a green from 150 yards.  A PGA pro?  I'm guessing he has little trouble.

One friend went on and on about how he nutted a 3-wood that knifed through a gale to the center of a green.  He three-putted for bogey.  I asked why he didn't lay up short of the green where he'd have an easy up and down and he couldn't comprehend that a golf hole would be played that way.  Very few people could hit that tee shot he did and he wanted to be rewarded for it.

Tommy and John,
I may see the staement by the club pro above in a different light.  Remember there is a huge difference between a golf professional and a professional golfer.  With all due respect to the exceptions, there are a lot of club professionals that cannot play and they might think a bunker is too deep.......while there may be architectural enthusiast that have higher handicaps that appreciate the deep bunker.....IMHO it is rare that you see golf professionals that understand architecture...unless we are discussing length and rough then they want more......THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS and I know plenty that appreciate it also.  And I think they would agree..

[Mark_Fine]

We talk a lot about this in our hazards book.  It is a topic that comes up often at clubs.  Shallow bunkers are a pet peeve of mine.  At the one club we are working at in NJ, every bunker is shallow and has no depth or character and consequently offers little in the way of hazard value.  They dramatically weaken the quality of the golf course and they will all be changed.

By the way, not every bunker needs to be six feet deep either but they do need to at least be three dimensional  

[wsmorrison]

Hugh Wilson believed that fairway bunkers should not be so deep that players of all classes were dictated to splash out and, in essence have a one stroke penalty.  Somewhat deep bunkers (not necessarily shallow pits) were better as he believed that the better player should have the ability to manifest his skill with a chance at recovery if he "rung the bell" with his shot.  Skill was to be tested and not constrained to a unity of shot dictation.  It is in his and his protoge's, Wm Flynn, writings and in their architecture.

That isn't to say that 60-80 years later they would not have a change of heart with today's length, club and ball technology and athleticism that is in the modern game.  But that is what they thought in their day.

[tonyt]

Hugh Wilson believed that fairway bunkers should not be so deep that players of all classes were dictated to splash out and, in essence have a one stroke penalty.  Somewhat deep bunkers (not necessarily shallow pits) were better as he believed that the better player should have the ability to manifest his skill with a chance at recovery if he "rung the bell" with his shot.  Skill was to be tested and not constrained to a unity of shot dictation.  It is in his and his protoge's, Wm Flynn, writings and in their architecture.

I love this as a principle. Great stuff.

But I would hate it if it applied to 100 out of 100 bunkers.

[wsmorrison]

Tony,

Agreed that it is not universal, there should be variety.  It was meant as a general principal for fairway bunkers and only rarely applied to greenside bunkers.