Bunker Depth

[Philippe Binette]

Mark Fine...

I know the course, (I've worked putting the sand in those bunkers) I just want to know if people recognized this course by a GCA.com favorite

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

Re: shallow bunkers, are bunkers there simply to punish as you suggest?  Or to make the game more interesting which you also imply? You also seem to imply that a bad drive is almost like a capital offense, rather than a petty theft!

If bunkers are to make the game more interesting, then IMHO, they should also be of such depth to allow the possibility of recovery, at least in most cases. I have no objections to a few bunkers in each round that signal you to stay away like a lighthouse keeps you off the rocky shore.  But, in general, if the bunkers are too deep on every occaision, strategy is gone because the ONLY logical play is well wide.

To me, most fw bunkers ought to be just deep enough to offer about a 2/3 chance of recovery to the green, because no thinking golfer will challenge a bunker that offers less recovery option than that, unless at a critcal point of a match (typically the last five holes or so)

As Pat Mucci has often argued, that means that generally, the further from the tee and closer to the green, the deeper bunkers may generally be, since the player will be hitting a shorter iron out.  I agree in theory, even if I would allow for exceptions, and know that many times the opportunity to build deeper bunkers in other locations prevail.

In terms of a golf competition, I see little reason to build a bunker that is totally inescapable, even for the best players.  Dooming someone to pile up a score, or lose a hole automatically when they find a bunker is sort of counterproductive to exciting golf, isn't it?

Just MHO>

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

Before my actual comment I suggested that we need to define what we believe a bunker is trying to present.

I am not a believer in tickling a golfer and making his life easier. The challenge is what I have always looked for. I am certainly not against bunkers, in fact as a links lover I unlike some here support their use.

On a previous post we discussed bunkers and in that I again stated my preference of deep bunkers. I have not changed. Perhaps with today’s big hitters we should place some deep bunkers in their line of flight, forcing an alternative shot. I am certainly a believer that bunkers should be used more strategically and as a penalty of forcing another stroke. But that my preference.

I wonder what the game would be like if bunkers were relocated to deter the long drives, perhaps the overall length of the courses could be reduced.

Bunkers/sand traps are a hazard and therefore should be treated as that, plus with some respect. If the belief is that a shot maybe lost then IMHO they are doing their job. A shallow bunker which has compacted sand is of no real threat to any competent golfer and I wonder what the point is of having them on a course.

Tom D mentioned some time ago about the Brits forgetting how to make bunkers, I wonder if designers are just making life easy for the golfer because that is what many golfers seek – the easy less stressful way – that’s not what I enjoy, hence I like deep bunkers.

As for a capitol offense not at all, but the hope of making the golfer think of alternative shots and approaches otherwise why not just use a practise range. Hazards, obstacles and blind shots are my likes, something that perhaps is being watered down currently to comply with the wants of an easier game. Fine if that’s what the majority want OK – but I am just saying my likes and wants.

Not being a designer or involved with the construction of a course and with that in mind I wonder why we don’t consider some of the old practices of placing the bunkers some 3 months after the course has opened to counter the way the course is played. But not with shallow bunkers, as I believe the designer is there to challenge the golfer and if the guys that hit the long balls are minimising your designs then sorry Jeff time for some real hazards to prove that you can make them think as well as hit the long ball.

Also, please, please more blind holes – I understand they are used  infrequently because it screws up Range Finders, GPS and yardage info, so yes please more,  lots more but it will not happen because you are now required to let the golfer win or at least give him an easy life. We do not want the golfer to break his clubs and walk off screaming for Mom that someone has made the course difficult and he can’t play it easily anymore – I think you understand my point.

Melvyn   

[Jeff Goldman]

I think the answer to this is quite obvious --- it depends.

Some places call for deeper bunkers, putting the risk/reward into trying to get as close to the bunker as possible for the easiest approach, but exacting a strong penalty if you don't hit a good shot.

But this can't always be the case.  Otherwise, you just create a bunch of pitch out bunkers which becomes tedious.  So, some times, it probably makes sense to make fairway bunkers shallow, so that the golfer can attempt a heroic shot, with a big reward, and a big penalty if it doesn't work out.  The best homer example of this I know is 6 South at my place (Olympia Fields).  It is basically a very cool knoll hole with the green set up high and huge falloffs left and right.  The best fairway position is closes to the fairway bunkers, but it would have been dumb to make those fairway bunkers too deep.  Now, they can be enticed to do something stupid like going for the green, and if they make it can still make a birdie or par, but if they miss, they can end up in the Kitchen, 25 feet below the green.

Those bunkers even give schleppers like me a choice of pitching out and having 110 yards in, or trying to get to a layup area where I can either run it up to the green or even putt it, both much safer options than the pitchout, because they take disaster out of the equation.

So....expressing a preference for either deep or shallow bunkers I think is a bit of ideology, at the expense of variety.

And Patrick, come to Chicago if you want to see berms on new bunkers.  They are controversial because of the look, but they play great.

Jeff

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I guess we should continue the discussion by defining what we think are deep bunkers?  We might be talking the same thing, if you call shallow 1' deep and too deep 10' deep.  Then we agree.  But, if you think a fw bunker at 3-5' deep, depending on distance to the green is too shallow, and think most fw bunkers ought to be like Hell Bunker at TOC, then we disagree.

But, in general, I did try to define what I think bunkers are for - to make the game more interesting. I think you agree in general, even if we disagree on how deep bunkers should be to accomplish that goal.

My simple, straightforward question to you is if you want bunkers to make players think, does a bunker that automatically cost you a stroke (or more) create more interest in a golf match (whether playing or watching, whether match play or stroke) than one that allows the possibility of recovery to the green?

My take is that it has nothing to do with coddling golfers as you suggest. It is all about making each hole interesting in context of a golf competition, not some metaphor for life.  And, I happen to believe that a bunker that offers a good possibility - but not certainty - of escape does that best.  And, that usually puts bunkers in the moderate depth category of 2-5 ft in the fw and shallow enough that you can see out of by the greens.

And as a practical matter, the fw bunker that accomplishes that is somewhat tuned in terms of depth and steepness of face to accomplish that goal.  In general, if the recovery for an average player would be with an 8 iron, the fw bunker can be deeper than if with a 3 iron.  And the face can be steeper - just under the approximate 40 degree loft of the 8, vs just under the typical loft of a 3 iron.  Given the free form nature of bunkers, that will vary with the ball position in the bunker.

Granted, the ground the bunker occupies might make it steeper naturally.  In those cases, the placements of other bunkers would be considered.  Generally, if I end up with a deep bunker in the fw LZ on one side, I give wider berth on the other, with wider fw, shallower bunkers that might present a better miss, or no bunkers at all.  If I want bunkers on both sides of the fw, I generally make them shallower than if on one side only.

So, as Jeff G says, yes it all depends.  But at some point, when building a bunker by importing soil because no suitable hazard exists naturally, I tend to think about how deep they ought to be "in theory."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

I'm hoping to get to Chicago next spring/summer.

My post delineated old courses from new courses.

If your course introduced fronting berms to make extrication more difficult, I applaud you/them.  But, I think you'll find that type of alteration the exception rather than the rule.

I'd love to see the before and after pictures of the bunkers/berms if you have them.

[Jeff Goldman]

Patrick, I pulled this one off a thread from last year.  It shows the first hole of the South Course from 1921, with the bunkers with the big high berms.  The style is controversial, but they drain and play great, and this is one example of a chip out bunker.  I'll try to post others. 

This is the first hole, which started as a 465 yard par 5, dogleg left.  It was later turned into a very difficult 435 yard par 4, into the prevailing wind.  In 1921 the tee shot looked like this (the green is to the left of the bunker on the left):



Since then, the bunker on the right was removed, and the one on the left was turned into another flat sand circle out of play.  Playing off the pic, Patrick and Steve wanted to return the drama evident in the picture.  They built two big bunkers, one short left and another long right, and the tee shot now looks like this:



The picture is a little deceiving since the bunker on the right is way down the fairway, and the one on the left pretty close to the tee - about a 180 yard carry from the regular tees, something like 250 from the back tees.  They also moved the regular tee up to 395, which I think adds interest to the hole for most of us - try to carry the bunker and get home in 2, or play safe right and have 225 left?  The green is to the left of the tree in the picture, and if the first five regular members who play hit it in the bunker and make 12, I'm going to put my scuba gear on. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Jeff - How deep is "deep"?

I'd hazard a guess of 6 feet.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

I agree in that any bunker that the golfer can't see out of is "deep."  5 to 6 feet fits that category for all but basketball players who play center.....

While we are talking about fw hazards mostly, I have occaisionally opined that greenside bunkers should "in theory" be deeper on short approaches to be more punishing for a short iron miss. However, most players seemingly prefer to see out of most of the greenside bunkers when playing, so if the slope allowed a deep bunker I would build it, but if building a fill pad, I doubt I would raise it so much that the green side bunkers would be more than 4-5 ft deep.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Functionality should be an inherent element in bunker design/configuration.

A shallow fairway or greenside bunker doesn't offer a substantive impediment in terms of advancing the ball.

One has to ask, what's the purpose of a particular bunker.

Does it serve as a tactical signal to the eye ?

Is its purpose form (visual) or function (playability), or both ?

A fairway bunker that offers little in the way of an impediment to play doesn't serve much of a function.  It's tactical or strategic significance is reduced as its functionality diminishes.

On the other hand, a bunker that provides a clear and significant impediment to advancing the ball, can't be ignored.  It takes on a greater tactical/strategic value.

Impediment = Depth in conjunction with configuration

Hence, bunker depth becomes a catalyst for strategy

While some will claim that establishing a general rule of thumb that the shorter the shot from the bunker, the deeper the bunker should be, is formulaic, it's really common sense and good golf course design.

Deeper greenside bunkers make hitting the green on the approach more important and avoiding the deep bunker more critical.

Deeper fairway bunkers make hitting the fairway/avoiding the bunker more important and avoiding the bunker more critical.

At NGLA and GCGC I can't recall many shallow greenside or fairway bunkers.
The great majority are fairly deep to very deep



 

[TEPaul]

Personally, I think bunker depth should basically be varied and random just as with many other aspects of nature. Bunkers should have personalities, some more severe than others. Golfers should come to know their differences no matter where they're placed. Standardizing bunker depth to reflect or suit standardized shot values I think is sort of the wrong direction to go in.

Take Pine Valley, for instance; there are all kinds of bunkers all over the place that run the entire gamut of severe to not so bad. Even the variety in size is remarkable---eg from one of the biggest bunkers in the world to the smallest one I've ever seen. That highly varied and random aspect of the course and the holes that make it up add measurably to the personality of the course.

[Anthony Gray]

As Pat Mucci has often argued, that means that generally, the further from the tee and closer to the green, the deeper bunkers may generally be, since the player will be hitting a shorter iron out.  I agree in theory, even if I would allow for exceptions, and know that many times the opportunity to build deeper bunkers in other locations prevail.

  If there is a rule of thumb I would say this is it. It is difficult for the US golfer to accept a sideways play from a fairway bunker.

  Anthony

[Tim Gavrich]

I love the look and challenge of really dramatic, deep bunkers.  My favorite golf course, Yale, also has the deepest bunkers of any golf course I've seen.  I love Pete Dye's courses; they have very difficult, severe bunkers.  The style of bunkering on each course I play makes a big difference in how much I like said courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony Gray,

I'd agree.

I think that's due to the trend to accomodate "fairness" at clubs in the U.S.

TEPaul,

Can you identify any shallow greenside bunkers at Pine Valley ?

Would you agree that the greenside bunkers at PV are NOT shallow ?

Which fairway bunkers at PV would you define as "shallow"

Vast sandy areas, such as those on # 7 and # 16 shouldn't be considered fairway bunkers, rather, vast sandy waste areas 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

It might also be a speed of play issue.  There is that great old quote about deep bunkers that says "the right of eternal punishment being left to a higher power than the gca."

I am not sure the old Scots or early Americans at the very least ever believed in truly deep bunkers, or at least, its a long term trend for them to be shallower.  On the old, dunes courses, bunkers were deep when cut in dunes but in the period of time when most bunkers were buil, bunkers aren't really that deep at most GBI courses.  And, the ones that are might have gotten that way with hundreds of years of sand build up. 

In America, CBM had pretty deep bunkers, but Ross and others certainly weren't known for them as they adapted golf to American soils.  So, maybe its a drainage issue as well as speed of play in addition to the ever growing notions that golf should be fair.

You certainly can't have a tough course without some deep bunkers, but is it possible to have a great course with only medium depth bunkers?

[Tom_Doak]

I believe it was George Thomas who pointed out that sometimes a shallow greenside bunker has great value, as it penalizes the player who misses wide of it, far more than the player who misses in the bunker itself.  I can't improve upon that, so I won't try.

As for fairway bunkers, I believe that the bunker only needs to be deep enough to challenge a shot toward the green -- so that a player who goes for the green risks leaving his ball in the bunker, but there is a range of recoveries possible depending on the skill of the player, instead of just "sideways".  If a faiway bunker is 175 yards from the green, it doesn't have to be that deep to be effective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I'd agree with that.
I think speed of play is a consideration.

I think it's a misquided consideration, but, within the culture in which the golf course is created, I guess it's a relevant consideration.

Just think of the days prior to 1932-34, before the Sand-Wedge.
Think of how much more difficult bunker extraction/extrication was.
Now, with the Lob-Wedge it should be even easier.

It's the current culture of golf that's resposible for slow play, not the architectural features, including deep bunkers.

I'd add, cost to maintain as another impediment to building deep bunkers today.

As much as I loved Wild Horse, I was disappointed by the bunkers.
In particular, the driveway ramp entrances and exits for the Sand Pros.

It was a compromise that disappointed the purist view.

I'm not an advocate of maintaining bunkers in pristine condition.

They're supposed to be hazards, yet, in the U.S. there's almost a demand that bunkers have perfect playing surfaces.  How many times have we seen bunkers with a dozen rakes laying about.

Where the topography and drainage permits, I'd prefer to see NON-shallow bunkers.

Speed of play is a weak excuse for the poor quality of the golfer.
TV has been one of the worst, if not the worst, influences on pace of play

A few months ago, I played GCGC with a friend of mine.
We played in 3 hours and didn't rush.
We played 27 holes.
And, we were both trying to play as best we could as we had a friendly rivalry going.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Ah, the old proportional punishment rule applied sideways.....

Pat,

Yes, all those things factor into bunker construction and slow play.

But, wedges only help the top players extract the ball.  The average ones still struggle as much as they ever did, so speed of play is a consideration for the 95% of the golfers who have higher handicaps.  But perhaps the biggest culprits in slow play (other than distance from green to tee) may be the prevalence of trees narrowing corridors and rough narrowing them further.

Bunkes might cover 2-3 acres of ground, and even if placed in high traffic areas, probably don't cause as many missed shots as deep rough that covers 50-100 acres of a course, and is also adjacent to all the fw and green targets.

[Norbert P]

"Personally, I think bunker depth should basically be varied and random just as with many other aspects of nature. Bunkers should have personalities, some more severe than others. Golfers should come to know their differences no matter where they're placed. Standardizing bunker depth to reflect or suit standardized shot values I think is sort of the wrong direction to go in."

     Hi Tom Paul.    As you may have gathered; I agree with you.    


 (I have never sworn in to any professional journalistic credo.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slag,

If you agree with that Idiot-Savant, TEPaul, then you're doomed to failure.

Jeff,

There were high handicappers playing golf in 1910, 1920, 1940, 1970, 2000 and now, and they didn't have the equipment, nor the grooming that exists today.

I acknowledge slow play exists ....... systemically,
I'm in denial when it comes to blaming it on the architecture unless the course is flanked with water and/or OB.

What many fail to employ, as a bunker strategy, is aiming away from the intended target.  There's nothing wrong with playing backwards or sidewards in order to extricate oneself from a bunker.  But, somehow, the golfing culture in the U.S. frowns upon that strategy/tactic.

[Mike McGuire]

We have an anti - depth fairway bunker on our course. Flat to the front and sides but you walk DOWN out of it on the way to they hole. Its halfway to the hole on a par five. I have seen guys almost knock it on in two from there. Hilarious.

[Jim_Kennedy]

On a rarely mentioned Pinehurst area course there are a pair of bunkers that flank the fairway, one per side, on a longish par four. To reach the green from either one you have to aim well outside the corridors of the fairway, where the lips are almost non existent, and either hit a big draw or fade. If you aimed right at the green the lips were too high to clear and still reach the target. If you just wanted to chip out sideways you were looking at 7' walls of sand.  As I recall they were around 190 or so from the green.

I had never seen such a setup before and disliked it at first. Now I think it was sort of interesting. It lured you into playing forward as the sideways chip was daunting, it gave you a chance to advance without reaching, and it also gave you the option of reaching with a great shot, but punishing you severely if you missed.


p.s. I was severely punished.    As I watched my first attempt at a big draw head for the schmutz I could only say, "Have a nice winter, ball".
My second actually did as I asked and made it up to the collar.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - the pictures that Sean Arble posts seem to confirm your comment about most GBI bunkers not being that deep. And then when you combine that with Tom D's reference to Thomas' ideas about greenside bunkers, and the description Jim Kennedy gives of the bunkers at that Pinehurst course, I'm now convinced - All Bunkers Shall Be Shallow . I know there aren't suppossed to be any "rules" in gca, but I like that rule - especially since it jibes with my likes, aesthetically-speaking. (And also, I'm a crappy bunker player)

Good thread, thanks
Peter

[Sean_A]

Jeff - the pictures that Sean Arble posts seem to confirm your comment about most GBI bunkers not being that deep. And then when you combine that with Tom D's reference to Thomas' ideas about greenside bunkers, and the description Jim Kennedy gives of the bunkers at that Pinehurst course, I'm now convinced - All Bunkers Shall Be Shallow . I know there aren't suppossed to be any "rules" in gca, but I like that rule - especially since it jibes with my likes, aesthetically-speaking. (And also, I'm a crappy bunker player)

Good thread, thanks
Peter

Pietro

I certainly wouldn't say the GB&I courses I play have shallow bunkers and I wouldn't advocate shallow bunkers.  Now all we have to do is define what shallow and deep are.  Personally, I think a deep bunker is one where folks ain't hitting 6 irons out of - wedges, 9s & 8s are probably the order of the day.  I spose its fine to have the odd bunker (or section of a bunker) where one can really be aggressive from, but as I believe bunkering should be fairly light, I would rather see them as fearsome things which will exact a toll from the player who takes on more than he can chew.  The more recoverable areas around the course should be from grass - so this should be the area we concentrate on keeping playable.  None of this knee high stuff!  In any case, the state of the rough and the severity of the hazards are indirectly related and should be treated as such. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe it was George Thomas who pointed out that sometimes a shallow greenside bunker has great value, as it penalizes the player who misses wide of it, far more than the player who misses in the bunker itself.  I can't improve upon that, so I won't try.[/color=green]

Maybe it's too early in the morning, but, I don't understand Thomas's comment.
Or, perhaps his comment wasn't in the context of a comparison between a shallow bunker and a deep bunker.  Perhaps it was within the context of a shallow bunker and no bunker at all.  Certainly, a deep bunker would enforce Thomas's desired penalty more than a shallow bunker.

As for fairway bunkers, I believe that the bunker only needs to be deep enough to challenge a shot toward the green -- so that a player who goes for the green risks leaving his ball in the bunker, but there is a range of recoveries possible depending on the skill of the player, instead of just "sideways".  If a faiway bunker is 175 yards from the green, it doesn't have to be that deep to be effective.

That's the impediment to advance the ball I mentioned.

While I might have felt that way many years ago, my mind was forever changed on the 16th hole at GCGC while playing a match against two other mid-handicap members, one of whom had hit his ball in the left side fairway bunker, leaving him about 170 yards from the hole.  When he walked into the bunker with a wood/utility club, I recalled the proverb from the famous Chinese Pro at Royal Chunking:  " Wood in bunker mean wood in head."

My partner and I were two up at the time and looked at each other with that comfortable feeling that we were about to win the match.

Unfortunately for us, he hit that shot less than a foot from the hole, won the hole and they went on to win the match.  In the past, a long iron would never have gotten the ball airborne, quick enough.  But now, with utility clubs, golfers are able to get the ball up quickly, hence, I feel that now, more than ever, bunkers need the depth necessary to impede advancement.

The problem is, every golfer at a club will complain to the green chairman, board and President that the bunker is "UNFAIR" and needs to be softened.
After non-stop complaints, the bunker is sanitized.

Seeing their success at removing/reducing the penal nature of one bunker, the membership now sets their sights on other features not to their liking, and pretty soon the golf course begins to lose its distinctive features and its bite.