Bunkers- the anti-hazard

[Mike_Young]

I played East Lake last week and as always I enjoyed it very much.  They will be having the Tour Championship during the last week of October and are preparing now.  
What struck me for some reason was that the only way to recover from the rough this week, one month from the tournament, is to make sure you are in a bunker.  From a bunker you can reach a green.  From rough around or short of a bunker you can only wedge out.
It is becoming more and more apparent to me that American bunkers are to be welcomed vs. competitive rough.  And since we are lengthening the carry of many bunkers this strategic element serves as a haven for the long wayward golfer vs. the short wayward golfer.
When Tom Doak speaks of "lack of strategy" this is one of the elements that stand out the most to me.
In this country bunkers have become nothing more than a framing, a contrast or a sight bunker for alignment etc.
I have taken several UGA golfers and had them play a 30 ft greenside shot from a 2" high 419 Bermuda rough "grassy hollow" and  then the same shot from sand and the "par save" rate is over 2 to 1 from the sand.
Sand has become an "anti-hazard".  Yet many architects are judged by the artistry of their bunkers.  As most of you know.  I will not comment on other architect's work but many here critique TF profusely.  When I play his work it is rare that a bunker comes into play yet aesthetically his bunkers are the major part of his work.  Could he be ahead of the curve??
Bunkers have passed us by as a hazrd unless we increase depth and quit pampering them.  Even on greensides a bunker is to be welcomed vs. a short grass hillside that allows a ball to roll even further from the green.
Suggestions???

[TEPaul]

You're right Mike, bunkering generally has been eviscerated! Bunkering, the age old architectural feature used by older and wiser designers as the primary strategy creating feature has been stripped of it's primary function--TRULY CREATING STRATEGY!

Why then has architecture seen so much more water (more penal than bunkering ever was) and more fairway narrowing with confining, higher rough than ever before?

It doesn't make any sense to me! It seems like in some of the most used features in golf--rough, water and bunkering--oh, and I shouldn't forget the overuse of trees either, that particularly Americans have gone in the exact opposite direction with every single one of those features than golf originally intended!

It doesn't make any sense to me! I guess America is just an enormous nation of contrary-opinionists!

[Mike_Young]

TE,
I   also played a course this week that receives rave reviews on here.  I have never been a big fan of the bunkering since I do not think it fits the region.  While there is talk on here of the shaping mastery of such courses and features these bunkers had over 6 inches of water 2 days after a rain.  And they are built in such a way that water runs across the ground and into the buker and in some cases out of the bunker on a low side instead of being captured and going to the middle.  They have become a mixture of sand and red clay yet people rave about the exquisite bunker work.  These exquisite bunkers were unplayable and would ruin a pair of golf shoes.

How do you think people would view bunker complexes surrounded by short grass chipping areas etc and shaped as a sand bunker but with a rough length grass instead of sand.  That would be a hazard yet I beleive many would not appreciate as they would a well shaped bunker with a contrast of sand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young & TEPaul,

Boy, are you going to LOVE Friar's Head.

NO RAKES, IN OR NEAR THE BUNKERS.

That's right, NO RAKES ON THE GOLF COURSE.

Bunkers at Friar's Head are being returned to HAZARDS.

Ken Bakst is clearly trying to change the "culture" of golf, returning it to what most on this site appreciate, on many levels.  His efforts are to be applauded.

[Tom Doak]

Mike:  re Cuscowilla:  you are absolutely right that the bunkers are built to become contaminated, which makes them difficult to recover from.  But I thought you were endorsing bunkers that were difficult to recover from?

I think Pacific Dunes is one of the few courses built lately where the bunkers are more difficult to play from than the grass -- the dune grass areas excepted.  Just using the soil where we dug, as the floor of the bunkers has given it a variety and inconsistency you seldom find on a new course anymore.  Actually, I've been quite surprised that more people have not commented (negatively) on that aspect of the course.

I do think bunkers today are overrated, more eye candy than strategic element, though I'm not a proponent of replacing them with grass bunkers.  But many people here are ostriches -- they have their heads stuck in the sand!

[Rick_Noyes]

Don't overlook the fact that sand bunkers are defined as hazards by the rules of golf.  Fairways and rough do not exist in the rules.  So there are different requirements one faces if you are in a sand bunker or a grass bunker.  Since you cannot move loose impediments in a bunker, the aforementioned bunkers would be a "double" hazard, you're in the sand and the washed in stuff.  Yuck! (Industry term there.)

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
I am endorsing bunkers that are difficult to recover from and therefore I would endorse contamination to a degree.
When you speak of your bunkers at PD you are speaking of what I meant in another post regarding regional conditions.  PD is prime natural bunker land.  Red clay is not and when contamination is allowed it will eventually become a clay bunker.  The clay will contaminate drainage and problems can develop.  The course I was playing had red clay footprints all over greens etc.  I don't have the answer.  And while I am not a proponent of grass bunkers replacing sand, it is just another oprion for some regions.  Again PD bunkers are the way they should be.  It was natural.  I wonder what our hazard of choice would be today if golf had started where sheep sought wind protection in soils other than sand.  If it were in Ga. one thing for sure is that we would have red sheep.
And while I don't like to mention courses; you mentioned Cuscowilla.  I enjoy playing the course greatly.  The greens complexes, routing and conditions are superb.  I just can't get the bunker style to work in my mind.
Mike

[Jeff_McDowell]

Mike, when I read your initial post, my first reaction was that bunkers are not becoming less strategic, but rough is becoming overly penal. It seems to me that the degree of difficulty from a sand trap is inversely proportional to height of rough. Do you think that lowering the rough would make bunkers less welcoming?

Sure, the best golfers easily recover from sand, but for the rest of the golfers, bunkers are still a hazard.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I really like a lot of what you say!

Sand bunkering is the oddest of all golf features--an inherently unnatural feature in so many parts of the world (that don't have natural sand) albeit most natural in the atmosphere from which it originally came!

And since that original atmosphere (the Linksland) was so central to the beginnings of golf and apparently to the entire evolution of golf and its architecture it's the odd vestige (and apparently nessary one) attached to golf and architecture for the rest of time! And this despite its prevalent unnaturalness to so many sites and areas of the world!

Unlike you, and apparently Tom Doak, and probably everyone else I can think of, I'm an advocate of trying new things in its place. I do like the idea of grass depressions (bunkers?) in place of the sand bunker--at least I like the idea of it! I think it just might work better as a strategic element, it might be more manageable and certainly it would be far more "site natural" in many parts of the world!

[BCrosby]

Great thread.

US bunkers are largely non-hazards for good players. Something is very wrong when pros want to find a fairway bunker on missed shots vs. ending up in the rough.

My take is that grass bunkers should be used much more often than they are. Especially in fairways. This ought to be in combination with lower rough heights and more penal sand bunkers.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I agree.  Shorter rough, less fertilized rough, even contaminated rough will make the bunker more of a hazard.  But I am not sure the majority will go for that.  It brings us back to TD post of "obsolete strategy".

Tom Paul,
IMHO the toughest grass to recover from is 2 inch Zoyzia.  I could advocate that to replace bunker sand but only as you suggest.. from a strategic point only.... and yes the rules would be different.  Sand is here to stay.
Mike

[MainelyJack]

I guess I endorse the view of Jeff McDowell. Since I bought a winter home in Tucson, AZ, six years ago, my bunker play has improved out of necessity, and I no longer cringe at the thought of having to get out of one. However, it is still something that requires all of my attention. The use of rough, penal rough, around the greens in many courses here in Maine and along the fairways, has made getting into a bunker somewhat more preferable. I do believe that bunkers should be designed in such a way that there is a way out for a well struck shot, rather than just blasting back to the fairway and then, hopefully toward and onto the green. I have seen fairway bunkers, as far as 200 yards from the green which had large mounding toward the green, like a greenside bunker. I consider this poor design. I don't think getting into a bunker should automatically cost a stroke and that a well played shot can get one back into the game. Of course, the Scots, with their dreaded pot bunkers have other thoughts, eh?

[3-Putt]

Pat -
On your comments below: well done!  I could not agree more!  Yes, Friar's Head is, in many ways, a return and a celebration of golf's old verities!  

And, it goes well beyond bunkers, there, too:

1) A design that is more about width, strategy and angles than it is about length and repetition.

2) A routing that is completely natural and blends into its setting (taking you from the dunes into the field and back again).

3) No sprinkler heads marked for yardages - instead, yardages in a book from natural objects like a tree, hump in the fairway, dune, etc.

But, to stay on topic, the bunkers are extraordinary.  Many look as though they have been there for 50 years or more - the fairway bunker on 18 even looks prehistoric!  By the way, why should there be rakes?  Aren't bunkers hazards to begin with?  Whatever became of rub-of-the-green?  Where is it written that golf is supposed to be fair?

In my opinion, it's about time that someone (or some group of folks) got it right!

Go Kenny go!

Mike Young & TEPaul,

Boy, are you going to LOVE Friar's Head.

NO RAKES, IN OR NEAR THE BUNKERS.

That's right, NO RAKES ON THE GOLF COURSE.

Bunkers at Friar's Head are being returned to HAZARDS.

Ken Bakst is clearly trying to change the "culture" of golf, returning it to what most on this site appreciate, on many levels.  His efforts are to be applauded.

[MainelyJack]

The positive comments about Friar's Head remind me of another "gripe" I have about the "modern" golf course. Yardages on everything from the sprinkler heads to anyhting else you can put a number on. I prefer the three standard yardages of 100, 150 and 200 (let me see you find those on the moors, laddie) and from there on in - you figure it out. When playing a new course with some friends they can't even pull a club until they have canvassed the available yardages, which often takes way too much time. Then there is the yardage book which I cannot figure out usually, with the adding and substracting depending on the tees you are playing and again more time is wasted while people argue over what the deistance is from the front of a certain bunker to the green. Isn't part of the game being able to figure out what club to hit based upon what you believe the yardage to be? Abd then we now have the carts with GPS. That really slows things down as players check both carts and available sprinkler heads AND the yardage book. As an old and dear friend of mine is fond of saying..."Hit the ball!"  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mainely Jack,

Then you too will love Friar's Head.

There are no yardage markers anywhere, including tees.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Generally, architects are afraid of tall grass hollow designs as they aren't d(eye)namic and I think they must feel obligated to present contrasts for esthetics. Tough call.  I would like to see more of them but also don't like to see them too large as finding a ball in them can be annoying if I have to search too long.   I don't have a gallery or a forecaddy to help me out.

[J_McKenzie]

Under normal playing conditions (not a course set up for tournament play), the average golfer would much prefer to play out of rough vs. a bunker.  I know I personally have seen more people pick-up their ball out of frustration in a bunker than I have from rough.

If bunkers aren't still a hazard, why do professional golfers ever debate whether to carry a bunker or lay-up?

[Mike_Young]

J Mc,
In my opinion what you say used to be a fair assessment but as rough has become watered and fertilized it has become so thick in my part of the world that even 419 Bermuda at 1.5 inches high is tough to recover.
As for a pro deciding whether to lay-up or carry a bunker, I would assume that he would mean to lay-up in the fairway and not rough and I would also assume that he would expect to carry a bunker into fairway again.  I agree with you if that is his choice of options.  I don't know if I agree if the rough is his other option unless the depth of the bunker keeps him from hitting the required shot to the green.

I am assuming this is the same J MC that used to be in Athens...correct??
Mike

[ChipOat]

I know there are often drainage issues, but why can't bunkers just be made deeper in order to stay true to the original "degree of difficulty" that existed pre-sand wedge (and pre-Lob Wedge)?

Fairway bunkers aren't immune to technology, either.  With everybody (at least) 2-3 clubs longer through the irons, the penal nature of even those hazards needs to be restored.

IMO, bunkers at virtually every "golden age" course that we admire on this website need to be deepened to restore the originally intended shot values of the ensuing recovery.

[TEPaul]

Mike Young:

The rules of golf would not need to be different, and they would not need to be changed either if bunkering became more grass based. The rules pertaining to sand bunkering (and grass within them) are clear and in grass bunkering the rules against grounding a club would just not apply!

[J_McKenzie]

Mike,

You are correct and I just got back from a great weekend in the classic city.

On Saturday I played the University Golf Course for the first time since they installed a new irrigation system.  It is obviously working well, because tee to green the turf is very good.  Ironically, the 419 bermuda rough is about as thick, even though it is mowed fairly low, as I have ever seen it.  Of course it was also wet from badly needed recent rains.  So my sore wrist can attest to the difficulty of playing out of rough.  My contention is that the average player is not as intimidated from playing out of rough (again I am referring to a normal rough cut, bermuda or otherwise) as he or she is in playing out of a bunker, even though the shot from the rough may be more difficult.  And I believe intimidation is a big part of what makes a hazard a hazard.

I can also attest to the state of mind of the average golfer from more than a few short game clinics.  Something becomes mentally disconnected for most when they get in the sand and only bad things can happen.  Yet give them a buried lie in high grass and at least they aren't afraid to chop it out.

By the way, I enjoyed your course in Hartwell (Cateechee?).

[A_Clay_Man]

BCrosby- You nailed it. Grass bunkers are prevalent throughout the design here at Pinon Hills. They are in fact much more thought provoking than the sand. Not to mention butt puckering ability. There are even a few places where the angle to the pin is best approached from one of these GB. Or if one can get on the up slope it makes attacking the pin more probable.

[John Bernhardt]

Mike what types of hazzards are natural to our part of the world. i do love you red clay pain. Once it is injected into any environment it does not go away. lol

[Mike_Young]

TE,
I was saying that if grass replaced sand in a bunker then the rule would change for the bunkered area.  You are correct.

JMc,
I played in the UGA Golf Team tourney at UGA on friday with Petey.  In pretty good shape.
Thanks, re: Cateechee.

John Bernhardt,

Best Hazard I know is 3 inch high Bermuda grass that is fertilized.  Shoal Creek proved that years ago.

Mike

[A.G._Crockett]

Last Aug., I sat in the grandstand behind the first green at Atlanta Ath. Club and watched the entire Sunday field play #1.  On a 400+ dogleg left par 4, basically any player who missed the fairway right opted to hit the ball in the front bunker and try to get up and down rather than not hold the green and play from heavy rough.  There is no question that grass "bunkering" is more difficult than sand, and I believe that this holds true at all but the very lowest skill level.  A full swing in which you don't have to strike the ball itself can't be as difficult as a partial swing.
Having said that, bunkers look cool.  They sell houses and memberships and give definition in photos.  Even though they are maintenance intensive, they will continue to increase in number and size.
There is a club here on the north end of Atlanta which was completely renovated and reopened a little less than a year ago.  As I understand it, the club is now suing the company that delivered the sand because it has compacted, rendering many bunkers "unplayable" in the opinion of the members.  This suggests to me that a bunker is a way for golfers to delude themselves about the difficulty of the golf course that they are playing.  If they were truly a hazard, I would have only a little more expectation of recovering and saving par than I would from the bottom of a pond, and that only because I could find my ball!