[Ed Oden]

This picture from Sean Arble's Governors Club thread is remarkable. 



Based on the size of the flagstick, I'm guessing that bunker is 25-30 feet below the level of the green.  Personally, I enjoy the challenge of deep bunkers and like the visual impact they have on a course.  But at what point do you cross the line?  When is a bunker too deep?

Ed

[Anthony_Nysse]

The 16th at PGA WEST staduim is 17-18 feet deep-open the clubface and swing hard!

[Mark Smolens]

When I can't throw the ball out of the bunker without injuring my rotator cuff?

[PThomas]

a good question....certainly one per course like the one in the picture or at PGA West

bottom line:  you have to avoid them AT ALL COSTS.....the great thing ab out golf is you have no one else to blame if you go in them

[Ed Oden]

a good question....certainly one per course like the one in the picture or at PGA West

bottom line:  you have to avoid them AT ALL COSTS.....the great thing ab out golf is you have no one else to blame if you go in them

Paul, for the most part, I agree with the "no one to blame but yourself" philosophy.  But just because I accept the penalty for a poor shot or a poor decision doesn't mean the design itself is a good one.  I think there is a line that can be crossed, although I don't know where that line is.  Otherwise, any poorly conceived feature could be categorically excused away as the golfer's problem. 

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily saying that this particular bunker at Governors Club crosses the line.  Since I have never played the hole I am surely unqualified to judge.  Rather, the picture was just the trigger for the question.

Ed

[Matt Kardash]

What sucks about the bunker in the picture is that it is short of the green (I think), which is where most golfers miss. At least at PGA west the bunker is left of the green, so it doesn't need to be carried and thus even the crappiest golfer can technically avoid it.

[TX Golf]

Tony,

I photo to illustrate your reference!!

[PThomas]

a good question....certainly one per course like the one in the picture or at PGA West

bottom line:  you have to avoid them AT ALL COSTS.....the great thing ab out golf is you have no one else to blame if you go in them

Paul, for the most part, I agree with the "no one to blame but yourself" philosophy.  But just because I accept the penalty for a poor shot or a poor decision doesn't mean the design itself is a good one.  I think there is a line that can be crossed, although I don't know where that line is.  Otherwise, any poorly conceived feature could be categorically excused away as the golfer's problem. 

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily saying that this particular bunker at Governors Club crosses the line.  Since I have never played the hole I am surely unqualified to judge.  Rather, the picture was just the trigger for the question.

Ed

Ed - understood!

i played PGA west twice and thankfully avoided the bunker both times...

...on the other hand, Ravisloe has its Devils Asshole on the 15th...its back left so it probably doesn't get much use...i never went in it...but i dropped a ball in there once and couldn't get it out!

another really deep one, if my memory serves me correct, is at the front of one of the par 3s at Bandon Dunes

[Mike_Cirba]

When the fumes and flames of Hades start seeping through the seams...

[Roger Wolfe]

The par 3 3rd hole at Royal New Kent has two monsters you have to climb down a ladder or steps to get down into.  AND... its a blind shot off the tee.  Whew!!  I used to have pics but cannot find them... if anyone can post... thanks!

[Ryan Farrow]

This shit has to be Photoshopped.

[Roger Wolfe]

In all its glory.  RNK #3.

[Roger Wolfe]

In all its glory.  RNK #3.

disregard... that is the par 3 8th hole.  auuuuuugh.

[Roger Wolfe]

This is it... from behind the green.  Bunker on photographers right is the monster.

[Ed Oden]

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily saying that this particular bunker at Governors Club crosses the line.  Since I have never played the hole I am surely unqualified to judge.  Rather, the picture was just the trigger for the question.

OK, the more I think about it, I may be questioning the design of this hole even though I am admittedly unqualified since I haven't played it.  Here is the picture again:



As I understand it, this is the approach on a shortish par 5.  So wouldn't the typical "miss" be a shot that comes up a bit short and rolls down the bank into the bunker?  If so, balls are likely settling in the front of the bunker pretty close to the lip.  So you basically need to hit an explosion shot straight up 30 feet.  How many golfers have that shot?  I'm leaning toward feeling that this bunker crosses the line and is too deep.

Ed

PS - Is quoting your own post a sign of senility?  I fear I have reached the online equivalent of talking to myself.

[Scott Warren]

So you basically need to hit an explosion shot straight up 30 feet.  How many golfers have that shot? I'm leaning toward feeling that this bunker crosses the line and is too deep.

Who says a golfer finding the bunker has the right to play directly toward the flag?

The pitch out sideways or backwards looks easy - puttable, even. That's more than can be said for the trap short right on the 6th at The Addington. It's a 20-foot face back, left and front, with unplayable scrub to the right.

Did some one say it's a short par 5? If it was a lake rather than a bunker, I'd suggest there would be little dissent, despite a lake being more penal than a bunker. Take 15 at ANGC, for instance.

[Sean_A]

Scott

The bunker on Addington's 6th is off the line of play - quite different from the GC bunker.  I am guessing that if that bunker weren't there, it would be a lost ball. 

Ed

I would be amazed if a ball hung under the lip of the GC bunker.  That bank is so steep balls will roll to the middle of the sand.  As mentioned earlier, there is a play out left that leaves the player still in the hole.  I like the penalty (and it is unusual for me to like this sort of thing) because it does make the flat bellies think because if they fail to reach the green it is likely that that their par is in serious jeopardy. 

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

One answer:

Forsgate GC (Banks), deep bunkers everywhere... probably a very fun course to play

[ed_getka]

A bunker is never too deep unless there is no way around it. Sean pointed out what I was thinking which is that you don't HAVE to pull off the difficult shot up to the green. Play out to the left and pitch it up and minimize the damage. You can't always go at the hole in the UK when bunkered and no one seems to complain too much about it, so I don't see why you should be able to go for the pin when you have put yourself in a deep bunker.
   I think the par 5 aspect of the hole and getting the big hitter to really think twice is a great thing about that hole. In general courses I have played with really deep bunkers like Lawsonia and Fishers Island don't force you to carry the bunker. They usually come into play when you haven't positioned yourself correctly with the previous shot, or the green is more readily negotiated from the side the bunker is on, but if you fear the deep bunker you have somewhere to go without having to take the bunker on.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I like Scott Warrens answer - if it was a lake who would question that bunker?

That said, I fall into the "maybe one on a course is okay as a "hmm" feature" school of thought.  If that one was off to the side it might be better, because there should be a way around it, even if it was a lake.  I think it might also be better with longer turf at the bank - does a near miss really need to go down a shaved bank to the bottom of that bunker?  Maybe one that hits half way down does.....but the details matter to most golfers.

In general, bunkers that deep make the recovery more luck than skill, even for the best golfers, and have many practical problems for lesser golfers.  Does a golf course really need to inflict that severe a punishment?  Dr Mac didn't think features needed to cause the handicap golfer to pile up a big score and I agree.

Most golfers like a bunker where they can see at least the top of the flag.  While I understand the theory behind the occaisional deep bunker (on a short approach shot, or to create a fear factor once in a while) and its not a totally black and white formula scenario of "X feet is too deep" I generally keep bunkers below 5' deep so golfers can see out of them.  Sometimes, sites like that one shown prevent that, and I have never heard golfers complain about those bunkers being too deep, but I think they would complain about that one shown. 

It would have been possible for the gca to build a raised floor and keep that one shallower.  Of course, I can't judge the context of the entire design, or the budget which might have influenced that decision.

[Sean_A]

I like Scott Warrens answer - if it was a lake who would question that bunker?

That said, I fall into the "maybe one on a course is okay as a "hmm" feature" school of thought.  If that one was off to the side it might be better, because there should be a way around it, even if it was a lake.  I think it might also be better with longer turf at the bank - does a near miss really need to go down a shaved bank to the bottom of that bunker?  Maybe one that hits half way down does.....but the details matter to most golfers.

In general, bunkers that deep make the recovery more luck than skill, even for the best golfers, and have many practical problems for lesser golfers.  Does a golf course really need to inflict that severe a punishment?  Dr Mac didn't think features needed to cause the handicap golfer to pile up a big score and I agree.

Most golfers like a bunker where they can see at least the top of the flag.  While I understand the theory behind the occaisional deep bunker (on a short approach shot, or to create a fear factor once in a while) and its not a totally black and white formula scenario of "X feet is too deep" I generally keep bunkers below 5' deep so golfers can see out of them.  Sometimes, sites like that one shown prevent that, and I have never heard golfers complain about those bunkers being too deep, but I think they would complain about that one shown. 

It would have been possible for the gca to build a raised floor and keep that one shallower.  Of course, I can't judge the context of the entire design, or the budget which might have influenced that decision.

Jeff

I think we have been around this sort of topic before in a general sense and I strongly disagree with you.  I don't want to know what most golfers think as a sort of ad hoc design committee because most golfers have their head up their asses (sounds harsh, but its true) when it comes to design ideas simply because they don't really care.  If archies actually followed this design by poll method more courses than now would be homogenized messes and is that what we really want?

I can understand not having a heavy steady dose of this sort of bunker.  That was one of my main issues with Yeamans Hall.  The only predictable and often repeated shots I had were from deep greenside bunkers.  I didn't mind the difficulty of the shot as I didn't find them that difficult even if they tended to be 8-12 feet high.  What I minded was the repetitive nature of the penalty for missing s shot.  IMO, I find this sort of thing a bit boring and hence my comments that I don't believe the green complexes are diverse enough at YH.  Meaning the bunkers were just way overdone which is a shame because the greens are great and in fact don't need that sort of "protection".

Ciao 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I agree with you on variety, especially if tied to some kind of "logical" thought process about 95% of the time, such as par 3, 5 and short 4 approach shots more likely to get deep bunkers, and holes late in the round (that might decide matches) more likely to get a deep bunker (a la 16 at PGA West)

I think (but can't prove) that it would make the course more interesting over time as golfers play more conservatively (perhaps) on deeper bunkered holes and it would make the strategy of each hole that much different than a bunch of 4' deep bunkers of the same penalty.

That said, I don't discount what the average and good player thinks in design.  Basically, I think its more fun to have a shot at recovery than not.  Thus, its not too big a leap to say that golf is more fun if every recovery shot offers a decent chance.  In fact, I would make that leap if not for the fact that I know of many courses where the too hard to reasonably recover bunkers are srpinkled throughout the course.

On a personal note, I compare my fairly gentle design at the Wilderness and Legend Giants Ridge course vs my Quarry at Giant's Ridge course which certainly has some "too deep" bunkers.  Play at the Quarry seems to be just a bit stronger than the other two courses, but anecdotally, more report liking the Wilderness for its playability.  Of course, I am not quite sure what to make of that, and the quarry nature of the Quarry meant it was going to be tougher anyway so I wouldn't change the design there or for the other courses, which are more northwoods types. 

As to golfer acceptance, I am pretty sure that (like blindness) they adjust their opinions of bunkers when they realize that a site may dictate the deep bunker, vs. the gca forcing it in just to be tough.

[Jamie Barber]

I think it's fair if a bunker offers you a shot. If you are forced to take a penalty drop back in the bunker, or the only shot means you may well lose a ball (e.g. playing towards heavy rough), then I'm not so sure.

Subject has been raised at our club where greenside bunkers have been re-built this winter and offer you no shot, or only a shot towards heavy rough. Penalty drop back in the bunker is the least bad option, but it seems too harsh to me.

[Scott Warren]

which hole, Jamie?

[Niall C]

I think it might also be better with longer turf at the bank - does a near miss really need to go down a shaved bank to the bottom of that bunker?

Jeff,

I suspect that I would rather be at the bottom of the bank in the bunker rather than stuck half way down. I consider myself reasonably fit but if that bank is as steep as I think it is then I would be fairly concerned about taking a tumble.

As an architect, presumably you would stipulate in your plans how the bank should be maintained ie. short grass/long grass etc. Would you not be concerned from a safety point of view if nothing else if you designed this feature on the basis of the ball possibly being stuck half way down the bank ?

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()