[JohnV]

Tom,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.  Areas that are maintained as bunkers should be bunkers, not "waste areas".

I believe the PGA Tour finally decided that about the areas at the TPC Sawgrass that they had initially declared "waste areas" but were maintaining as hazards.  They are now hazards.

Then there was the stupid one at Harbour Town that was considered a "waste area" because it had crushed shells instead of sand which enabled Stewart Cink to get a great break in a playoff.  The Decisions book had a decision added that allowed the Committee to clarify the status of material similar to sand and declare it the same as sand so that areas like that could be considered hazards.  I believe it is now a hazard.

Pete Dye seems to be the main trouble maker in all this doesn't he?

A lot of clubs have statements on the back of their cards that are not legitimate rules, which is why smart tournament organizers say to ignore all the rules on the club score card.

[TEPaul]

"I have never thought about this, but it makes a lot of sense.  In fact, I think that with the abolition of that rule, an even stronger case could be made for not raking bunkers so meticulously (or at all)."

Tim Gavrich:

Why do you think I wrote this thread in the first place?  

It seems to me it is virtually impossible today to go in the direction of making sand bunkers what they should be in golf---what they were originally intended to be in golf through the back door---eg less highly consistent maintenance practices.

So I figured perhaps a better way would be to just look at the entire issue by coming through the front door at it---eg with the R&A/USGA's Rules of Golf!  

There is no question in my mind---none---that the existence of Rule 13-4 is the primary vehicle with which constantly improved and consistent maintenance practices in bunkers, the ever increasing demand for fairness and the ever diminishing aspect of luck has been ridden into the modern game of golf.  

[JohnV]

Mark, I've never been there, although I might be officiating the Senior Open this year so I'll see what the USGA decides first hand.

From the pictures I've seen I can imagine how tough it might be, which is probably why the PGA made the decision they did.

Going all the way one way or the other does simplify matters.

[JSlonis]

John,

Your example of Stewart Cink at Harbor Town was the first image to come to my mind regarding this issue.  The situation that allowed him to basically tee the ball up in that waste area was ridiculous.  I remember watching that live, I couldn't believe my eyes.

I hope they have corrected that loophole, it was really poor.

[John_Cullum]

There is no question in my mind---none---that the existence of Rule 13-4 is the primary vehicle with which constantly improved and consistent maintenance practices in bunkers, the ever increasing demand for fairness and the ever diminishing aspect of luck has been ridden into the modern game of golf.  

I just don't see it this way. I think bunker maintenance practices are driven by the concept of fairness. Grounding the club is not going to address the fairness concept.

[ChipRoyce]

What if Rule 13-4 was removed from golf?

Would it be heresy or would it ultimately be benefical, perhaps even massively benefical to golf and particularly to the future of golf architecture?

For those who don't instantly recognize it, it is the prohibition against touching the ground in a hazard. A hazard includes a bunker.

Did you know there once was a time in early golf when there was no such prohibition? The lie of the ball ANYWHERE on a golf course was protected under the simple rule that one could not improve one's lie, period. But this never meant one could not touch the ground in various places. Rule 13-2 is sufficient to protect the lie of the ball anywhere on a golf course!

Once you begin to ponder this and what it has apparently wrought over the years, including what it has ultimately done via the maintenance practices of golf course architecture, I think you will begin to realize what the extent of the removal of Rule 13-4 could mean to the future of golf and architecture, including mainteanance practices. For starters can you imagine the amount of money it might save? Can you imagine the philosophical seachange it might create in golf itself?

I doubt the Rules makers would ever deign to even consider such a thing simply because they view Rule 13-4 as so traditional that at this point it must be fundamental to the game.

Is it though? I think if they were very honest about its history and bothered to go all the way back and look seriously at why it REALLY came into the game in the first place they might be truly surprised!

By the way, Max Behr referred to those days before this type of prohibition as 'the halcyon days of golf'. In his mind apparently that time was before the Rules makers of golf began to excessively moralize over the game and its rules and prohibitions.

Tom;
I'd agree that the golfer should be able to ground the club. That said, I believe any practice swings within the Hazard (thinking specific to bunkers) should be prohibited for no other reason, we don't need to be wasting more time on the course.

[JohnV]

Tom,

Bunkers are first mentioned in 1812 where the rule against lifting loose impediments is found:

Stones, bones or any break-club within a club length of the ball may be removed when the ball lies on grass, but nothing can be removed if it lie on sand, or in a bunker; if however it stick fast in the ground, it may be loosened.

In 1858, grounding the club was banned:

When a ball lies in a bunker or sand, there shall be no impression made, nor sand or other obstacle removed by the club or otherwise, before striking at the ball.

Since these are the basic parts of 13-4, you can see that they were around long before maintenance of bunkers was standardized.  Therefore, it is hard for me to believe that 13-4 is the "primary vehicle" for the perfect maintenance that many golfers expect today.

[TEPaul]

"Why would this rule change have any effect on maintenance?
If golfers were now allowed to ground their club in a bunker, why would courses maintain them differently?"

Jamie:

I think because golfers realize, and they always will realize, there are plenty of areas out there "through the green" where they will get all kinds of imperfect and inconsistent lies. If the Rules of Golf removed Rule 13-4, bunkers would simply be another one of those areas out there "Through the Green" with imperfect or inconsistent lies.  

Or perhaps to look at the issue in another way----perhaps everyone should simply ask the question of what the prohibition of grounding your club in a hazard (bunker) implies?

The prohibition implies something, don't you think?

I think I can guarantee you that there is probably not only one thing it implies.  

[JSlonis]

There is no question in my mind---none---that the existence of Rule 13-4 is the primary vehicle with which constantly improved and consistent maintenance practices in bunkers, the ever increasing demand for fairness and the ever diminishing aspect of luck has been ridden into the modern game of golf.  

I just don't see it this way. I think bunker maintenance practices are driven by the concept of fairness. Grounding the club is not going to address the fairness concept.

John,

I agree with you.  I think letting someone ground their club in a bunker that would now be "less" maintained is only asking for trouble.  

With the way the rules are written currently, there is a rule/line drawn in the sand that the golfer can't cross.(Pun Intended )  Without this rule it becomes to subjective as to what is grounding your club and what is improving your lie.

Tom,

It's a shame that we would have to consider changing the Rules of Golf in order to get people to realize that a bunker is indeed a HAZARD.

[Mark_Fine]

John Cullum,

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[John_Cullum]

I think because golfers realize, and they always will realize, there are plenty of areas out there "through the green" where they will get all kinds of imperfect and inconsistent lies. If the Rules of Golf removed Rule 13-4, bunkers would simply be another one of those areas out there "Through the Green" with imperfect or inconsistent lies.  

Tom, this view is born by your playing most of your golf at elite private clubs. And I don't mean that as any sort of smart ass swipe, I believe that if you had more experience at low cost and municipal golf courses, you would realize that bunker maintenance is an afterthought for the maintenance staff and the golfers.

[TEPaul]

"In 1858, grounding the club was banned:
Quote:
When a ball lies in a bunker or sand, there shall be no impression made, nor sand or other obstacle removed by the club or otherwise, before striking at the ball."
 
"Since these are the basic parts of 13-4, you can see that they were around long before maintenance of bunkers was standardized.  Therefore, it is hard for me to believe that 13-4 is the "primary vehicle" for the perfect maintenance that many golfers expect today."

JohnV:

That's true that the prohibition against grounding a club in a bunker was around long before the maintenance of bunkers was standardized or basically perfected as it has been today. (Do you notice how that 1858 rule allows grounding the club just prohibits that it make an impression?).

I'm not even suggesting that the prohibition against grounding a club in a bunker originally was instituted because the Rules makers may have somehow forseen better bunker maintenance in the future and may've wanted to do something to preserve the difficulty of recovery from bunkers (prohibiting touching the ground).  There's little question in my mind they probably instituted the prohibition simply as a better way to tell if someone had improved his lie in a bunker.

Also back in that day (1858) and for many, many decades to come bunker lies surely were more effectively penal for all than they are today simply because their sand surfaces were so infrequently maintained. That may be what we need to keep in mind now!

That's the point I'm making.

The reality today is that they are not infrequently maintained, as they were back then, to prevent imperfect lies. They are maintained all the time to insure consistent lies today.

The question is should bunker sand surfaces have constantly maintained consistent lies?

I guess they should if the goal to be striven for in golf is to constantly look for any way possible to insure consistency and fairness in golf and to diminish the existence of bad luck.

But we need to ask ourselves what was the purpose of bunkers in golf in the first place? Most think they were used primarily to set and create strategy. And many think a strategic ramification can only be as effective as a golfer's concern that something will make him pay somehow in the only currency golf has----strokes.

All I'm looking for is some better, cleaner and simpler way to make less bunker maintenance more acceptable.

Would the ability to ground a club in a bunker make the determination of the improvement of one's lie more difficult?

Of course it would. I guess the question then becomes what is most important in golf----to make strategies more effective in golf by less bunker sand maintenance or to catch cheats in golf?

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

I'm looking for ways to make less bunker maintenance more acceptable at courses that have too much of it. If public courses have less bunker maintenance and less perfect lies in bunkers I think that's a good thing.

On this subject it is never far from my mind that for many, many years and frankly until quite recently the perenial #1 course in the world had the most unmaintained bunkers of which I have ever been aware.

In my opinion, that may've even been significantly responsible for its reputation and ranking.

[AndrewB]

for many, many years and frankly until quite recently

What changed and when?

[JohnV]

Tom,

I agree completely with the premise that bunkers don't need to be and probably shouldn't be maintained to perfection.  I hate the fact that the PGA Tour makes every bunker identical.

I've had a PGA (not PGA Tour) official tell me that every bunker should be raked so that the rake marks go towards the hole every day for championships.

A Champions Tour player bitched at me for the way the USGA maintained the bunkers at a Senior Open, so I'm pretty sure that the USGA doesn't feel that the maintenance should be as perfect as some.

But, I fail to see the connection between the rule and the procedure.

As you say, Pine Valley's reputation has not be marred by the way it "maintains" its bunkers and the rules haven't needed to be changed for them to do it.  I also wonder why, if Pine Valley's example is so great, other courses don't just do it.  I have to believe that it is because the both membership doesn't want it and because the superintendent has a need to make them perfect because of the demands on him to be "professional".

Also, given the way members complain about imperfect fairways and inconsistent rough, I don't think that making them "through the green" would make them more tolerant of imperfect conditions.

[TEPaul]

"But, I fail to see the connection between the rule and the procedure."

JohnV;

REALLY?

Do you really think there is no connection between the fact that so many golfers have always thought that since they are not permitted to ground their club in a bunker (thereby effectively making the shot more difficult) that that is why they also think a bunker should be nearly perfectly maintained?

I can't believe you've never made that connection. Otherwise, why do you suppose there has been such a  demand that bunker sand surfaces be so consistently maintained?

[Matthew Hunt]

Tom:

I wish they would change that provision.  As you know, some of the hazards I build make it hard to determine exactly where the bunker stops and the native begins ... and instead of thinking that is good, the rules people give us a bunch of crap about it.

However, I don't know if it's going to change.  You are right that Rule 13-2 would still prevent someone from improving their lie in the sand, but it becomes a judgment call instead of a clear-cut question of whether you touched the sand or not, and it might well lead to some arguments in tournament play.

Tom how do they determine were is rough and were is Bunker on such courses

[Scott Witter]

T Paul:

"Otherwise, why do you suppose there has been such a  demand that bunker sand surfaces be so consistently maintained?"

Surely you are not referring to the local muni, maybe the privates I can agree with.

I'm curious, if bunkers were not maintained as they are today, would golfers not get so hung up on the concept of 'fairness'?

"I think bunker maintenance practices are driven by the concept of fairness. Grounding the club is not going to address the fairness concept."

I am not as convinced fairness is driving maintenance in a direct fashion, though there is clearly a connection for obvious reasons, but if maintenance didn't exist I think golfers would be less inclined, dare I say become more educated that they are truly in a hazard and the lie is what it is!

Tom Paul:

A lot of this interesting information (great thread by the way) is presented at length in Forrest's and Mark's book and I believe, at least based on many superintendents, green chairman I know who bought the book, it may achieve what you are looking for...but then you would have to actually buy the book  

[Dan Herrmann]

Personally, I don't know why 13-4 exists.

Fouls in other sports are put in place to protect against unfair acts.  In American Football, even silly things like illegal shifts are illegal because they can confuse the defense.

So - who is the offended party if a player violates 13-4?  His fellow competitor?  His opponent?  If so, how are they taken advantage of?

To me, the only thing we need to think about is to ensure that a player can't move enough sand to prevent a virtual tee - THAT would put his competitors at a disadvantage.

[JohnV]

I can't believe you've never made that connection. Otherwise, why do you suppose there has been such a  demand that bunker sand surfaces be so consistently maintained?

Tom,  I never have made that connection.

I think it is just that players want "perfect" conditions everywhere on the course, tees, greens, fairways, rough and bunkers.  

The best players know exactly how to play the shot if every bunker is maintained the same way so they want them all the same.  It doesn't matter if you can ground your club or not as long as they are all maintained in a fashion that prevents plugs and gives you a good lie.

Dan,

The offended player is anyone the player is playing against if it allows the player to get his ball in the hole in fewer strokes by removing difficult conditions.

How do you draw the line that you want?  What is too much?

The Rules of Golf create many arbitrary boundaries in what a player can do.  Usually the attempt is made to do so in a way that makes it obvious and less of a judgment call, which the current rule does, while a rule that said, "You can't move enough sand to make a virtual tee" would be much harder to interpret.  We would get back to Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" kind of rulings.

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside:

as someone once noted, it's a misunderstanding to say that rules are meant to SOLVE problems and questions; what the rules actually do is to CREATE problems and questions. For example, the rules of chess make it HARDER to get your king out of harm's way, not easier; and the rules of ethics create MORE moral questions rather than less, or actually are the CAUSE of the moral questions in the first place.  

Boy, now that I've written this, I realize that it's REALLY an aside. Carry on, please

Peter  

[TEPaul]

Scott Witter:

I haven't read Mark and Forrest's book yet. Do they suggest that perhaps the abolition of Rule 13-4 is something the Rule makers and golf should consider?

"Tom,  I never have made that connection.
I think it is just that players want "perfect" conditions everywhere on the course, tees, greens, fairways, rough and bunkers."

JohnV:

I've never heard of anyone demanding that other hazard areas such as water hazards that have no water in them be perfectly maintained. Do you think those hazard areas will be next? Think of all the other areas on golf courses around the world that are not perfectly maintained that are actually "Through the Green". Golfers don't seem to be demanding they be perfectly maintained, and they aren't even "Hazards".

[Scott Witter]

T Paul:

I should really say something valuable about the comprehensiveness, the detail, design, evolution, maintenance evaluations, the entertaining descriptions, complete with interesting drawings and countless pictures and opinions from the worlds great   architects, dead and alive...but what I will say is just buy the book and add it to your collection, you won't be disappointed.

[ChasLawler]

As you say, Pine Valley's reputation has not be marred by the way it "maintains" its bunkers and the rules haven't needed to be changed for them to do it.  I also wonder why, if Pine Valley's example is so great, other courses don't just do it.  I have to believe that it is because the both membership doesn't want it and because the superintendent has a need to make them perfect because of the demands on him to be "professional".

John,
At the risk of getting off-topic, I'd argue that the reason most clubs have not adopted Pine Valley's bunker maintenance methods, is simply because 90% (or more) of club members nationwide have no idea what Pine valley even looks like.

Imagine what American GCA would be like today if the Masters had been held (and televised) every year at Pine Valley instead of ANGC.

[Mark_Fine]

It is not always the case, but bunkers that "look unmaintained" can be more expensive to have look that way than one thinks.  Anyone care to guess the golf course maintenance budget for Pine Valley?  If you are in the six figures, you are low  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()