[Patrick_Mucci]

Greg Murphy,

I once spoke to an architect who felt that fairway bunkers should create a half-shot to a full-shot penalty.

At a golf course that I'm familiar with, the fairway bunkers presented that situation.

Then, a green chairman came in and reconfigured the bunkers such that a ramp of sand was created from the low point in the bunker to the top of the lip in the bunker, allowing extraction with NOTHING to impede the flight of the ball from the bunker.

And, the reason he gave ?

The bunkers were too unfair, they didn't allow the golfer to hit the green if he was in one.

When in fact, a superior shot could find the green, but, a marginal or poor shot would pay a dear price.

And, he also objected to the luck of the draw, in that a ball that rolled close to the front of the bunker was faced with a much harder shot than a ball that came to rest in the middle or back of the bunker.

Thus, architecture which put a premium on driving accuracy was subverted and negated in the name of fairness.

And, once the bar is lowered, once the offending feature is emasculated, it's very difficult to restore it.

[D_Malley]

whether or not anybody ever hits into this bunker, it works in this situation because of the fact that it obstructs an otherwise clear view of the landing area, and creates a little more uncertinty.  as i said before the middle and forward tees are to the left which gives them a better view and they do not have to hit directly over the bunker.

[D_Malley]

mike

this is the view from the new back tee on #16.  give me a call when you want to come by.  we probably will not open until mid week.

[Greg Murphy]

Patrick,

I imagine very few club members had much criticism of the green chairman who emasculated the bunkers you speak of. This raises the question: why do players resist penal bunkers. Is it because they are “unfair”? Or is it something else?  Being a newbie, I suspect this has been discussed many times on other threads, but forgive me for taking a quick crack at it.

Those who conclude penal bunkers are bad architecture reason as follows. Golf is a test of skill. The essence of golf is controlling the ball. Controlling the ball from sand is more difficult than controlling the ball from short grass. Bunkers exist to present a test to distinguish and separate the skilled player who has acquired superior ability to control the ball from sand from the player lacking that skill. A bunker that extracts a half shot or full shot penalty emasculates the more skilled player. It treats the skilled player the same as the less skilled. Although usually phrased in terms of “fairness”, the criticism of penal bunkers is actually not really about “fairness”. In fact, a penal bunker may be eminently fair in the sense that it imposes the same half shot or full shot penalty upon all players for arriving there. The real basis for complaint is that a bunker that affords no opportunity for skillful or heroic escape actually squanders an opportunity to add interest to the game.

How does one argue against this? I don't think I would want to actually argue against it. It is not wrong thinking, just narrow thinking. First, the case may be made that golf is more than just a test of skill, like darts or billiards. It is a sporting adventure. Secondly, golf involves more than controlling the ball from various lies. It also involves controlling the mind. Risks, rewards, choices, judgment, doubt, etc. But it can be tough to articulate this kind of argument, especially to the typical golfer who would view it as esoteric.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I imagine very few club members had much criticism of the green chairman who emasculated the bunkers you speak of.


Like most issues at clubs, different segments of the membership took different sides.   When that occurs, its usually from the perspective of a vested interest of the member, and not from an arms length, more global view.


This raises the question: why do players resist penal bunkers.

Every bunker is penal, some just more than others.

Is it because they are “unfair”? Or is it something else?  Being a newbie, I suspect this has been discussed many times on other threads, but forgive me for taking a quick crack at it.

Those who conclude penal bunkers are bad architecture reason as follows. Golf is a test of skill. The essence of golf is controlling the ball. Controlling the ball from sand is more difficult than controlling the ball from short grass. Bunkers exist to present a test to distinguish and separate the skilled player who has acquired superior ability to control the ball from sand from the player lacking that skill.

That's the fallacy of your premise.

Bunkers don't exist to differentiate the skill of those who enter them.   The exist to serve as a tactical signal to the golfer's eye, to warn the golfer of the danger, and to force him to strategize his play, avoiding them, while maximizing his chances of conquering the hole.

A bunker that extracts a half shot or full shot penalty emasculates the more skilled player.

That's also untrue.
The more skilled player will extracate himself more efficiently, both in the decision making process and in the execution.

It treats the skilled player the same as the less skilled.

Yes, and No.
The more skilled player is usually able to extracate himself better, but, once in the bunker, both are faced with an unusual circumstance that will usually impede scoring on that hole.

Although usually phrased in terms of “fairness”, the criticism of penal bunkers is actually not really about “fairness”. In fact, a penal bunker may be eminently fair in the sense that it imposes the same half shot or full shot penalty upon all players for arriving there.

The real basis for complaint is that a bunker that affords no opportunity for skillful or heroic escape actually squanders an opportunity to add interest to the game.

Another flaw in your premise.
That condition only exists once you're in the bunker.
The real interest is to avoid a dire bunker, in fact, a dire bunker increases the interest ..... exponentially.

It would appear that you're not familiar with the bunkers at some of the courses in the UK, where steep, brick faced sod will impede the extracation of any ball that come close to it.

Are those bunkers, those courses uninteresting ?

TOC, Troon, Turnberry, etc., etc.. ?

How does one argue against this? I don't think I would want to actually argue against it. It is not wrong thinking, just narrow thinking.

First, the case may be made that golf is more than just a test of skill, like darts or billiards. It is a sporting adventure. Secondly, golf involves more than controlling the ball from various lies. It also involves controlling the mind.

And, those that receive the ominous tactical signal to the eye, that choose to ignore it, are doomed to the consequences, irrespective of how harsh they may be.

Golf involves "course managmement" which is a function of the architecture.

Those that read the visual signals from the features and create a game plan within their powers of execution fare far better than those that either ignore the signals or create flawed battle plans, usually beyond their ability to execute.


Risks, rewards, choices, judgment, doubt, etc. But it can be tough to articulate this kind of argument, especially to the typical golfer who would view it as esoteric.

Then, that golfer is doomed.
Even Chimpanzees learn from repeated experience.

[Greg Murphy]

Patrick,

Your absolutely correct. Every bunker is penal, some just more than others. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be hazards to avoid. The beauty of sand bunkers as hazards is they may be designed to offer a broad spectrum of consequence. A bunker that creates a one shot penalty is a hazard equivalent to water or trees or bush. A bunker that creates a half shot penalty is like deep tall grass. A bunker that creates the potential for complete recovery is a different, sometimes more interesting hazard than water or long grass as it offers hope for redemption to the skilled player and ideally, the potential for digging an even deeper hole if the recovery attempt is ill advised or botched. All bunkers, the one shot, half shot and the something less than half shot penalty, have their place and interest. But it is the ones that extract the half shot and full shot penalties that create the outcry that cause architects to respond by altering or eliminating them in their designs.

[Adam Sherer]

My two cents would be flat greens.  While there are still some out there being built with good contouring, most greens on modern courses are pretty flat and boring.

Was this a product of golfer outcry?  I can't say for sure, but it sure seems feasible as undulating greens are resitant to scoring.

I agree! Green contours was the first thing that I thought of after reading this thread by Patrick. I know that he referenced a bunker topic as one of ther things that architects have sacrificed through golfer outcry, but the greens are also important. I'm sure everyone here can picture the greens at Sitwell Park (from seeing the pictures) and ascertain that greens have become dull and diluted due to golfers not being able to putt on the old greens with the modern maintenance standards (case in point U.S. Open 2006 @ Winged Foot and soon to be 2007 US Open)

[Gary Slatter]

Patrick,
the average golfer does not know how to hit from closely mown bent grass, they think its "unfair".  Within a few weeks after Mad River GC in Ontario opened, the Super was changing areas from bent to rye so members could get their clubs "under" the ball.  The popular expression around the club was "you've been Cupped" when they could not navigate from any of the chipping areas built into this best Bob Cupp course. All this in spite of the fact that our staff spent hours teaching the short game, or as they say at Mad River, "the little game".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your absolutely correct. Every bunker is penal, some just more than others. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be hazards to avoid. The beauty of sand bunkers as hazards is they may be designed to offer a broad spectrum of consequence. A bunker that creates a one shot penalty is a hazard equivalent to water or trees or bush. A bunker that creates a half shot penalty is like deep tall grass. A bunker that creates the potential for complete recovery is a different, sometimes more interesting hazard than water or long grass as it offers hope for redemption to the skilled player and ideally, the potential for digging an even deeper hole if the recovery attempt is ill advised or botched. All bunkers, the one shot, half shot and the something less than half shot penalty, have their place and interest. But it is the ones that extract the half shot and full shot penalties that create the outcry that cause architects to respond by altering or eliminating them in their designs.

But,

That can be the same bunker, depending upon where the golfers ball comes to rest.

Bunkers don't, in precise fashion, penalize a golfer, a half shot, one shot or no shot.

They are far more flexible/diverse than that.

What's really interesting is how Americans thirst to visit the UK, play courses with penal to very penal bunkers, and then return to the UK to play golf, time and time again, yet, they seek to eliminate or defang any bunker on their home course that presents a similar challenge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam & Kalen,

There's no doubt, that as green speeds increased, interesting, challenging contours were removed from in the name of fairness.

The terrible aspect of this process is that as green speeds continue to increase, greens will become less contoured until they reach an ultimate configuration, almost dead flat.

This trend eliminates challenge and interest, and not just in putting, but, in the approach, recovery and putting.

The golfing world has become over-populated by those who would rather eliminate the challenge than confront and overcome it.

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree Pat in principle here.

However it seems to me that this is more of a symptom of people feeling that if they are on the green in 2, then they should be able to two putt, which I completely disagree with.  I've seen plenty of fast greens with lots of undulation that you can 2 putt, if you hit two good putts.  On the other hand if you hit one of these poorly it will result in a 3 putt or worse.

Then again I might be biased because the putter is the most lethal tool I have in my bag and I love fast undulating greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would agree Pat in principle here.

However it seems to me that this is more of a symptom of people feeling that if they are on the green in 2, then they should be able to two putt, which I completely disagree with.  

That's part of the quest for "fairness", that and the notion that there's a right of entitlement to two (2) putt, irrespective of the contouring, the portion of the green they've played to, distance from the hole, etc., etc..

Rather than face and overcome the challenge, they want it eliminated or diminished to the degree that they can cope with it.

It's dumbing down the character of greens and catering to the lowest common denonminator when it comes to ability.

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree Pat in principle here.

However it seems to me that this is more of a symptom of people feeling that if they are on the green in 2, then they should be able to two putt, which I completely disagree with.  

That's part of the quest for "fairness", that and the notion that there's a right of entitlement to two (2) putt, irrespective of the contouring, the portion of the green they've played to, distance from the hole, etc., etc..

Rather than face and overcome the challenge, they want it eliminated or diminished to the degree that they can cope with it.

It's dumbing down the character of greens and catering to the lowest common denonminator when it comes to ability.

Well said Pat...very well said..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

What I find particularly disturbing is what I call the "Big Boy Influence"

Sometimes it works to the advantage of the architecture, like when Oakmont, NGLA and other clubs remove trees, recapture lost features, etc., etc..

The "lessor" clubs see this and seek to emulate what they see, claiming that if ____ is doing it, it must be good.

However, it can work against the architecture.

On the issue of softening/disfiguring the putting surfaces, I've heard that Winged Foot has embarked on that process to accomodate the higher speeds necessary to host Major Championships.

That sends out a terrible signal to the rest of the golfing world.

Winged Foot's greens are spectacular.
The thought of removing slope and/or contour to accomodate higher speeds is a travesty.

Some will claim that it enables them to recapture more tactical hole locations, but, that's just nonsense.  Those hole locations are already there, and will remain there if the greens are maintained at 8 to 10 on the stimp.  
At 11-13 those locations disappear, but, it's not due to the contours, it's due to the insane concept of having the greens at 13 for four days every 10 years.

Why would you want to remove the character and disfigure those greens for 150/60 guys who play the golf course for 2 to 4 days once every 10 years.

It sends out the worst possible message, and the blame for this travesty lies with the USGA and the Club.

Show me a woman/man who has cosmetic surgery because a new boyfriend/girlfriend prefers a certain look and I'll show you a woman/man who doesn't have a strong sense of "self".

Rather than having cosmetic surgery, they should tell their new suitor to hit the road and look elsewhere.  And, so should great golf courses.

If you don't think we're good enough as we are, try and find someone else who better suits your needs.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()