Rough versus Bunkers: Bunkers appear to be losing - Is that good or bad?

[Jerry Kluger]

A recent thread brought up the fact that maintenance practices are causing bunkers to be less relevant.  The rough is being grown so long and thick that balls are stopped from going into the bunkers.  Granted, it is often more difficult to play from the rough than from a bunker, but is that the proper criteria in determining which one should the shot be played from?  It would seem to me that architects consider bunker placement as critical in designing a hole so growing rough long enough to stop balls from going into the bunkers frustrates the efforts of the architect.

Your thoughts?

[Ken Moum]

A recent thread brought up the fact that maintenance practices are causing bunkers to be less relevant.  The rough is being grown so long and thick that balls are stopped from going into the bunkers.  Granted, it is often more difficult to play from the rough than from a bunker, but is that the proper criteria in determining which one should the shot be played from?  It would seem to me that architects consider bunker placement as critical in designing a hole so growing rough long enough to stop balls from going into the bunkers frustrates the efforts of the architect.

Your thoughts?

The real problem with bunkers going forward, is that the expectations of maintenance have created a situation where some course are spending a third of the maintenance budget on them.

That is not a viable option for clubs like the one I play, which is on the edge of failure, and has been for some time. I would like to see slightly fewer bunkers, but with a "gathering" function so as to maximize their impact.

Also, I wish we could somehow get back to the idea that they are hazards, and that a player shouldn't automatically have a decent chance to get up and down from them.

FWIW -- Bob Randquist's three-part interview on GCA.com has a lot of good information, but it's from 2004. See http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewrandquistno1.html.

He's still teaching his "Hazardous Duty" course, and there's piece I did for reprint about it last year available here: http://www.gcsaa.org/cm/gen/gcsaa_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/bunkerdilemma.doc

[John Moore II]

I can see this two ways. One is on a greenside bunker. In that case, heavy rough around the bunker can be more of a hazard than the bunker itself (not that it should be, but it is). However, if you have steep faces around a flat bottom bunker, a ball hanging up in the face would be in a far worse position than if it fell into the bunker. But in a fairway bunker I can see the need to have a ball roll into the bunker. In that situation, the bunker is a bit more of a hazard than rough (assuming the rough is not 6" deep).

[Jerry Kluger]

The problem is the ball cannot fall into the bunker as the grass is to thick.  A ball which is off line and heading toward a fairway bunker should wind up in the bunker, instead, the ball has to either land in the bunker or one hop into the bunker, after that, the rough gathers it up.  I cannot believe that most architects forsee maintenance practices which would make a purposefully designed bunker nearly irrelevant.  Sure, it can be difficult to play from the rough than the bunker, but is that the intention of the architect?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Rough v Bunkers

I want both but while the rough is just subject to day to day maintenance or shall we say the lack of it for financial reasons and therefore cannot surely be described as an architectural feature or design intent.

I like and want bunkers. These hazard neatly located across the fairway to catch the long ball from the Tee and/or with the bunkers guard the Greens which must be deep to add that extra fun factor.

Ending up in the rough is generally down to error, but missing the fairway bunker is down to skill and judgment of the speed of the fairway. This is a design feature and if comes into play then the Architect has notched up another victim – but please have them deep as shallow gives little satisfaction IMHO

Bunkers being removed is bad for the golf, after all they are part of the game.

[Jerry Kluger]

Melvyn: If you watched the PGA Tour last week the consensus here was that the deep rough was taking the bunkers out of play and thereby effectively removing them - the fact is that unless those bunkers are deep, they are less of a hazard than the rough.  The goal of the tournament courses in many instances is to keep the scores up and that is being done through tall, thick rough and is eliminating the design features of the hole.

[ChipOat]

It's bad.  Deep rough is bad, period.  It slows down play and, except at the highest levels (i.e. touring pro's and top amateurs), it isn't really necessary, anyway.

It's bad.