Consistency, rub of the green and Jagged edge bunkers......

[Mike_Young]

"But because most people play the "root rule" we just live with it and the club doesn't even consider it a problem until we have a state tourney or something and all of these areas have to be marked with white paint."

MikeY:

The "root rule"??

I know the Rules of Golf pretty well but the "root rule" is a new one on me.

All those areas like the roots of trees have to be marked with white paint in Georgia for state tournaments??

That's pretty interesting. Up here in Pennsylvania if some state tournament player hits the ball into the trees we sure as hell don't give him any "white paint" relief.

Up here we pretty much use what some call the "Unplayable Ball" Rule and the choice of whether or not to use it we actually leave up to the player involved. Some are apparently more adept than others at when to make that choice though, or even whether to make the choice. Personally, after it was explained to me that I had a choice not to use the "Unplayable Ball" Rule i never saw any particular reason to use it, particularly since it cost me a stroke before I even pulled the club outta my bag.

Perhaps a radical and revolutionary thought but we go with that philosophy anyway for some odd reason. I once asked why we do things like that up here and the official told me because that's the way it's been done in the Rules of Golf for as long as anyone could remember so I just said; "Well, alrightee then, whatever." I just took out my 3 wood and ripped at it between the roots snapping off the head of the club and breaking both wrists, That took me out of the game for over a year but you know what they say---"If you want to play this game you gotta know the Rules."

TE,
If you must know the truth ..yes we have a "root rule"  we keep it in the shower at the club...I have been told that the GAP clubs also do this but it is a much smaller version.....

Back to topic

TE.....Our professional was Ed Hoard who is a national rules authority and he always marked these areas with white paint.....not all roots but areas where the roots are exposed moe than 2-3 inches.
Again..I understand roots in the rough BUT I am talking about almost every hole with significant issues as you described with your wrist.....

Look.you guys don't need to think I think a golf course has to be fair...it can be unfair and I have no problem but it makes no sense to me for a club to intentionally leave specific areas unplayable while placing sand in fairway divots and topdressing greens as smooth as a baby's butt.....

I guess my issue is....if the ability is there to fix an area such as rots...knowing you will still have some unplayables and the ability is there to do a jagged edge bunker and not create pocks where you cannot place a club on the ball..why do it?

[paul cowley]

Listening in on this discussion [well reading in really], I'm beginning to think I'm becoming more and more out of touch. Has 'fairness' been co opted by the PC crowd? What about taking responsibility for your own actions? Whats wrong with the idea that the closer you aim to a goal the more difficult it is to achieve? And that the punishment for your failure to achieve it might be greater than the punishment for playing it safe? Avoiding bad consequences is what gives obtaining something its value.....I mean keeping your sights low and goals small is rarely rewarding, even if you achieve them.
......of late I have been half dementedly looking around the Swamp for the long lost 'Lord God' bird, the Ivory Bill Woodpecker, and what if I had gotten bit by a Cottonmouth or attacked by some of he other harmful things that hang out there.. Would that be fair?....of course it would be!...its basic risk /reward.....I mean I'm willing to pay the price to be one of the few that has one of these birds stuffed and on my mantle. Wouldn't you for gods sake? The last confirmed sighting here was in the 40's [1956 in Cuba]. Considered extinct for almost 90 years.
Talk about setting a high goal.

TomP said it right with "The original and far better concept of "fairness" in golf was that bad lies in bunkers was no less or no more fair or unfair for anyone since everyone had to deal with the same thing anyway."...and nobody bitched or whined.

I can't help feeling that we are slowly straying away from the real core of this 'game'.... all the while trying to make it more similar to real life.

[Mike_Young]

Paul,
I don't think fairness has been co-opted by the PC crowd.
But I do think I am msunderstood here on this subject.
IMHO there is a differenc ebetween building a hazard that is unfair and a hazrd that is unplayable.....or anyother surface on a golf course...if this were not the case why do we worry so much about green conditons or fairway conditions?  
For example..if you were playing a fairway that was dimled with 10 inch diameter 4 inch deep dimples would one call this just unfair or unplayable......I say give me any condition you wish with the rub of the green but let me play......thats all.

[paul cowley]

Mike ...I agree in that you are probably in the majority opinion on this issue and that my general distaste for Rules, Rakes or Stakes isn't mainstream....but, the over maintenance and over expectation of just about everything is really starting to dull my interest in playing the game. There are courses I've built that I don't play....not because of the design but because of all the other rigamarole.

I just prefer the game on a more modest basis and could care less if the divots were filled with green sand mixed with grass seed.

Happy New Year and I look forward to seeing you in Atlanta this Spring.

[paul cowley]

  Consistency, rub of the green and Jagged edge bunkers......
« on: Today at 10:50:07am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Last week I played a course with some of the  "ragged, Jagged,so called minimalist" bunkers.....etc. "  


Mike ....just curious, this wasn't one of ours was it? [the 'fort' course].....no need to specify otherwise.

[Mike_Young]

  Consistency, rub of the green and Jagged edge bunkers......
« on: Today at 10:50:07am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Last week I played a course with some of the  "ragged, Jagged,so called minimalist" bunkers.....etc. "  


Mike ....just curious, this wasn't one of ours was it? [the 'fort' course].....no need to specify otherwise.

Paul,
No it wasn't one of yours.  From what I have seen of your bunkers they are not what i am calling jagged edged.

But from your post....if you think I am saying I like sand filled divots etc....I never said that....
I can live with slower greens, unraked bunkers, higher fairways, less water.....I am not one that cares for most of the maintenance levels of the day.....but I do expect playability....someone just IM'd me and said that they thought many people were confusing the word in the title "consistency" with playability.  Unfair playability is just fine with me.....but unplayable and unfair is another matter.

Happy New Year.....

[paul cowley]

Mike, I'm just ranting generally and not trying to suggest anything about what you are saying [we are probably agreed on most] .

[Mike_Young]

Mike, I'm just ranting generally and not trying to suggest anything about what you are saying [we are probably agreed on most] .

I sent you an IM
Mike

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, You cant condem the whole for a specific situation where the maintenance of the rugged edges is either mis-guided or ill-advised.

Anything that precludes a creative golfer from recovery is IMO flawed.

BTW. The way you originally described the bunkers, reminded me of the 2000 U.S.Open at PB, where the eyebrows, on many bunkers, were grown to many feet long. Under normal play, they would be clean shaven.

[Mike_Young]

Anything that precludes a creative golfer from recovery is IMO flawed.

That's what i have been trying to say.
Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

As long as you are not defining "recovery" as "being able to get close to the hole", I'm with you.

I have seen a couple of courses recently where I thought the bunkers couldn't really be maintained in spots ... I'm all for severe, but just going out and shaping up a mess and leaving it as a "hazard" is a different story.  I do spend a lot of time on my construction visits assessing what the recoveries are going to be like from all around the greens.  What as been referred to by some as "random penalties" are really not random at all, they are deliberately varied.  

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

As long as you are not defining "recovery" as "being able to get close to the hole", I'm with you.

I have seen a couple of courses recently where I thought the bunkers couldn't really be maintained in spots ... I'm all for severe, but just going out and shaping up a mess and leaving it as a "hazard" is a different story.  I do spend a lot of time on my construction visits assessing what the recoveries are going to be like from all around the greens.  What as been referred to by some as "random penalties" are really not random at all, they are deliberately varied.  

TD,
I don't care if you have to hit it backwards....just let me hit it.....that's all....

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

If that's all you're after.....

I think your latest clarifications make it difficult for anyone to argue that hazards which completely inhibit an attempt to extricate are not good.

Wordy, but you know what I mean.....

Joe

[Eric Pevoto]

To summarize:  A player can get a club on the ball=good.  Otherwise=unfair.  Agreed.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Anything that precludes a creative golfer from recovery is IMO flawed.

Adam,
Wouldn't you agree that there may be creativity involved in the decision to take an unplayable?

Mike,
What do you think about Rae's Creek? As far as I understand it, if you're in  it, it is entirely a matter of luck as to whether or not you can get your club on the ball...
I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but is it possible that you would accept your lot in the Creek, but not the bunker, the latter being man made? They are both hazards.

Eric,
If that is the concensus, could we at least lose the intrisically whiney sounding 'unfair' and have club on ball - 'good', no club on ball - 'bad'?

[Tom_Doak]

Sean and Lloyd:

I'm going to flip over to Mike's side for now.

Rae's Creek was undoubtedly better twenty years ago, when players were tempted to go down in there and try to play out.  It prolonged the agony of a bad shot, and it allowed the possibility of spectacular recovery.  But, it was a water hazard, and everybody expected the ball would be in the water and they would have to take a drop.

A greenside bunker does not have the same expectation, and I really don't think it should.  Stroke and distance is a brutal option; dropping in a bunker is not much better.  ESPECIALLY if the reason for it is that the architect was just too lazy to work on the hazard long enough to provide a playable option.  

If an architect really wants to stake his reputation on bunkers that often require penalty drops, that's his right, but you may be his only fan.  If the course maintenance does it for him, that's a sad story.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
What do you think about Rae's Creek? As far as I understand it, if you're in  it, it is entirely a matter of luck as to whether or not you can get your club on the ball...
I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but is it possible that you would accept your lot in the Creek, but not the bunker, the latter being man made? They are both hazards.

LLOyd,
If I could get my club on the ball in a water hazard such as Raes creek I would just consider it a bonus.....because I never expect to play from water hazards but I do expect to play from bunkers.....IMO the management of one's game is implemented before the shot and I would weigh water vs. sand.  If one says no...I would ask...would #13 at ANGC/ Raes Creek play differently if the golfer knew the creek bed was dry or either all sand vs. water......I say it would make a huge difference.....
Mike

[Adam Clayman]

Lloyd, I'm at a loss.  Do you mean a situation ala Shinnecock's recent open where Stadler didn't use that option? Similar to when Tiger, out of Rae's creek, did?

If so, thats not exactly what I was referring to.

Clever use of the rules shouldn't be a guideline when evaluating GCA, should it?

[John_Cullum]

What do you think about Rae's Creek? As far as I understand it, if you're in  it, it is entirely a matter of luck as to whether or not you can get your club on the ball...
I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but is it possible that you would accept your lot in the Creek, but not the bunker, the latter being man made? They are both hazards.

The difference here is that if your ball is unplayable in a water hazard, you can get it out of the hazard for one stroke, just the same as if you played it out.

If your ball is unplayable in a bunker, you have to take a penalty and still be in the bunker (or stroke and  distance).

[John_Cullum]

Clever use of the rules shouldn't be a guideline when evaluating GCA, should it?

Architects need to know the rules pretty well.

I still am not sure what Mike is referring to in this post. The rules define a bunker, it is a PREPARED area, where turf and soil has been REMOVED and replaced with sand. If a ball can get into an area where a player cant take a stance and make a stroke, it shouldn't be considered a prepared area, that should be an abnormal ground condition.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

That's true.  I saw some bunkers on a course this summer that fit your description ... looked like a lot of balls would get hung up on the faces, which were extremely rugged and looked like they would be hard to maintain.  In that case, you could take an unplayable and drop behind the bunker, as if you're in Rae's Creek.  But I couldn't fathom why they built those bunkers that way.

[ForkaB]

In my experience, unplayable lies in bunkers are a maintenance problem more than a design one.  Two real life examples spring immeidately to mind.

1.  Relatively new course built by very well known GCA.  Deep bunker cut into an elevated greensite with eyebrows of 2-3 inch rough all around.  Long iron to green hit a few yards left of ideal (my bad) which rolls off towards bunker but stops in the eyebrow leaving no stance and only a goofy recovery shot (course bad).

2.  Old Open venue where ball just rolls into near green bunker and comes to rest within an inch of the front lip, which is 6-8 inches high.  Only possible legal shot is backwards with a follow through which will take several cubic yards of turf and revetment with it, and possible lead to wrist damage.

Both of these situations could have been avoided with proper maintenance practices.

PS--gorse is a good "not able to get club on ball" penalty, but only if at the periphery of the field of play.  Random gorse bushes in the field of play, as I think Tom Doak advocated earlier in this thread, are not a good idea, IMHO.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd, I'm at a loss.  Do you mean a situation ala Shinnecock's recent open where Stadler didn't use that option? Similar to when Tiger, out of Rae's creek, did?

If so, thats not exactly what I was referring to.

Clever use of the rules shouldn't be a guideline when evaluating GCA, should it?

Adam,
I have no particular example in mind.
I just think that on occasion it might be smart to not put the club on the ball, and doesn't it at least require some intelligence, or restraint, maybe, to come to that decision. Could that be considerded creative thinking? I think so.

[Mike_Young]

Lloyd,
Let me put it this way.  Should an architect try to design some areas into his designs where the player cannot put the club on the ball?  And if this is the case could you give me some examples you would use.  

[Lloyd_Cole]

What do you think about Rae's Creek? As far as I understand it, if you're in  it, it is entirely a matter of luck as to whether or not you can get your club on the ball...
I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but is it possible that you would accept your lot in the Creek, but not the bunker, the latter being man made? They are both hazards.

The difference here is that if your ball is unplayable in a water hazard, you can get it out of the hazard for one stroke, just the same as if you played it out.

If your ball is unplayable in a bunker, you have to take a penalty and still be in the bunker (or stroke and  distance).

John
I don't want to get pedantic here, but there are no unplayable lies in water hazards.
I was using Rae's Creek as an example - I should have specified 'before the water was deepened', I was under the (I guess wrong) impression that it had be returned to it's original state - anyway I was citing an example of a hazard that one can get lucky in, or if your ball is 6 inches to the left, you get unlucky..
I am in no way in favour of building bunkers that cannot be maintained.
I am however against the idea the the only luck allowed is good luck. I am especially against the idea that the better player, 10 feet from the putting surface, may have earned said luck, more than some '10 handicapper'. I am also against the idea of expecting a playable lie in the trees.