Bunkers: Should they be maintained to "perfect" standards?

[Carl Johnson]

Question: What are the "'perfect' standards"?  The first thing that pops into my mind is a smooth, uniform sand surface, but others here are taking a broader view.  It's tough to answer the question: "Bunkers: Should they be maintained to 'perfect' standards?" -- without knowing what those perfect standards are.  Is the manicured look of Augusta National for the Masters the perfect standard?  Are the regular, smooth sand surfaces clearly preferred by the professionals on the PGA Tour the perfect standard?  Who says what's the perfect standard, anyway?  Jim Nance?  Personally, I prefer the more natural looking links-style bunkers, with uneven sand surfaces.  Are those bunkers the perfect standard?  Should they be?  (Of course, I also perfer the more natural links-style course overall.)  But how would those bunkers look on a parkland course otherwise maintained like Augusta?  Does the perfect standard vary from course to course, depending on the general nature of the course as a whole?  Is there one perfect standard golf course, to go alone with our perfect standard bunkers?  Just wondering.

[Michael Whitaker]

Carl - This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? What is the "perfect standard?" Perhaps everyone will share their thoughts on what they consider "perfect."

For me, "perfect" bunker maintenance does not necessarily mean a smooth packed surface that guarantees a relatively good lie. And, I don't really care if the bunkers are consistent from hole to hole. In my mind, they are intended to be hazards and it is my chore to figure out how to get out of them. I'm not a proponent of "natural" bunkers that go unraked... I want the player who was in the bunker before me to put it back the way he found it, which hopefully means he filled in his size 12 footprints! That's pretty much it. I don't really favor one style or look of bunker over another... although, I do lean toward the type bunker in Chris' post above.

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael Whitaker,

Bob Randquist, the Superintendent at Boca Rio wrote a great white paper on Bunkers and bunker maintainance.

I thought it was posted on "In My Opinion", but, it's not.

I believe that Bob presented it at a GCSAA conference.

If your super doesn't have, or can't get a copy, let me know and I'll try to find my copy and email it to you.

Patrick_Mucci - perhaps you could post the white paper on this site, or if you email or fax it to me and I will post it. I'm  sure a good number of the participants here would be interested in seeing it.

My fax number is 800-687-9716.

Thanks!

[Michael Whitaker]

Melvyn - Thank you for posting the pictures of the Road Hole bunker. It is fascinating to me how that bunker has changed over the years. The 1924 version seems to have a depression just outside the right side that would keep balls from running into the bunker... which would dramatically alter the way we think of the hole playing today! And, I'm not sure that the 1924 version has a deteriorating revetted wall... in a previous thread on bunkers it was discussed that revetted bunkers did not come into vogue until well into the 20th century, so your 1924 photo might be just as the bunker was presented at that time.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

The sod wall bunker was not a 20th Century invention.  It was known and used in the 19th Century and in particular at TOC.

My proof is based upon the attached photo, which appeared in the 1897 publication ‘British Golf Links’.



Look closely at the front face and it is clear that it has a sod wall. As for the Road Hole Pot Bunker, this was originally credited to Allan Robertson with Old Tom just maintaining the bunker with minimal alterations until the early 20th Century.

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

Michael

I really don't know what the perfectly maintained bunker is.  Some like fluffy sand others light tight sand.  Many argue about hair on the edges and the depth.  I don't think there is such a thing as "perfect" and I certainly don't believe we should be making an effort to achieve perfection.  I have personally always liked the rough and ready look (as we see in the 1924 photo of the Road Hole), but I can understand the push to tart bunkers up in an effort to control the buggers in terms of erosion (which means they essentially grow) or in terms of keeping sand in the pit.  These are the reasons for revetted bunkers - no?  I don't even mind if bunkers aren't maintained on a daily basis - say raked once a week and no rake for the golfer, but then I would advocate even less bunkers on courses than I do now.  The bottom line is that bunkers are all about their placement and harshness, maintenance is a secondary concern and so I don't think loads of money should be spent on that.  Bunkers must cause golfers to pause.    Once a course has so many bunkers where they are commonplace than golfers will ignore them and we have lost their essential worth.  The same is true of their maintenance.  If they are an easy recovery (meaning there is a very low risk of losing two or more shots) than they will largely be ignored.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

I use the term bunker to describe a specific sand trap on the course, but my preference is to use the term hazard. Bunkers need to be used in this term to remind everyone (including architects/designers/clubs) that they are there to try to interrupt play or force the golfers hand and skill. On inland course, they were originally used to give the golfer a connection to the Links course that made the game so popular. They, if you may remember (    ) also worked well with turf dykes to give the impression of the natural undulations of a links course.

Over many years, I have observed golfers in bunkers and quite frankly the maintenance requirements are generated by poor behaviour by many players.     It is interesting to see how some enter and exit the bunker. How some stand on the face trying to check out the pin, clearly not caring the damage they may be inflecting on the structure of the bunker. Yet one major complaint I have is the mindless golfer who refuses to rake the sand after he has finished building sand castles in the sand as well as the deep moats. When on the few times I have found my self in one of these traps, my ball as come to rest in a footprint or deep gully caused by the bumbling oaf who last used the bunker. I do love the considerate golfer and how he forgets to clear up – but then that is just human nature.

I feel we use the word Bunker instead of hazard, perhaps due to the modern trend some bunkers are actually, so shallow they are no longer conceived as hazards. For me I say - I want hazards in all their forms – they must test and/or challenge the golfers approach to his next shot. Easy is of no use to man or beast and certainly must be a drain on maintenance costs if bunker is ineffective as a real trap.

Melvyn 

[Sean_A]

Sean

I use the term bunker to describe a specific sand trap on the course, but my preference is to use the term hazard. Bunkers need to be used in this term to remind everyone (including architects/designers/clubs) that they are there to try to interrupt play or force the golfers hand and skill. On inland course, they were originally used to give the golfer a connection to the Links course that made the game so popular. They, if you may remember (    ) also worked well with turf dykes to give the impression of the natural undulations of a links course.

Over many years, I have observed golfers in bunkers and quite frankly the maintenance requirements are generated by poor behaviour by many players.     It is interesting to see how some enter and exit the bunker. How some stand on the face trying to check out the pin, clearly not caring the damage they may be inflecting on the structure of the bunker. Yet one major complaint I have is the mindless golfer who refuses to rake the sand after he has finished building sand castles in the sand as well as the deep moats. When on the few times I have found my self in one of these traps, my ball as come to rest in a footprint or deep gully caused by the bumbling oaf who last used the bunker. I do love the considerate golfer and how he forgets to clear up – but then that is just human nature.

I feel we use the word Bunker instead of hazard, perhaps due to the modern trend some bunkers are actually, so shallow they are no longer conceived as hazards. For me I say - I want hazards in all their forms – they must test and/or challenge the golfers approach to his next shot. Easy is of no use to man or beast and certainly must be a drain on maintenance costs if bunker is ineffective as a real trap.

Melvyn 

Melvyn

Funny, I don't like the term hazard at all unless it refers to all obstacles which can trip up the golfer rather than merely the ones as defined in the rules.  A bunker is merely a specific type of hazard, but it isn't worth getting into all that. 

Like you suggest, I prefer bunkers to be nasty.  Unlike you, I generally prefer only a sprinkling of bunkers because they should be nasty and well placed and if they are, there should be little need for loads of bunkers.  Show me a course with 100 bunkers and I will show you a course wasting money to maintain many of them because its damn near impossible to have 100 well placed bunkers if the goal is to make the golfer think.  If the goal is to punish the wayward shot immediately, then there is no such thing as a poorly placed bunker.   

Ciao

[Trey Stiles]

The whole bunker thing is out of control , here's an example :

About a month ago , I'm playing with a buddy who manages this course , I knock it in the bunker , I assess the lie , the depth , the texture , the moisture content , ect .... I proceed to hit it 15 feet past.

My buddy starts apologizing because of the bunker condition :
   1 - I hit it in the bunker
   2 - I knew the sand was thin
   3 - I knew the bunker was semi wet
   
The course in question was on financial life support , yet the expectation from many golfers was that it was supposed to be just like the PGA Tour on $ 35.00 GF/CF.

[John Moore II]

One thing this tells me Mike is that the bunkers on that course cited in the article are far too big, or the labourers are far too slow.   200 man hours/week comes out to 15-25 minutes preparation per bunker per day.  That is mind boggling, at least to me.

I can buy 200 man hours or labor. You have to factor in time moving from one bunker to the next, and if they are all being raked by hand, it will certainly take that long. Plus, if they rake them everyday, again, I can certainly see it taking a total of 200 hours per week.


To the main question, no bunkers do not need to be maintained to perfect standards, they are hazards by definition.

[Jon Nolan]

No, absolutely not.  Bunkers are hazards and should equate to at least a .5 stroke penalty. 

My pet peeve is not bunkers in, ahem, hazardous condition but bunkers that are watered.  Just say no to the bunker puddle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

Bob Randquist's three part Bunker Treatise can be found under the "Feature Interview" Section of GCA.com

[Kyle Harris]

One thing this tells me Mike is that the bunkers on that course cited in the article are far too big, or the labourers are far too slow.   200 man hours/week comes out to 15-25 minutes preparation per bunker per day.  That is mind boggling, at least to me.

I can buy 200 man hours or labor. You have to factor in time moving from one bunker to the next, and if they are all being raked by hand, it will certainly take that long. Plus, if they rake them everyday, again, I can certainly see it taking a total of 200 hours per week.


To the main question, no bunkers do not need to be maintained to perfect standards, they are hazards by definition.

I think this number is way high.

That's 5 40 hour per week employees. Every course I've worked at has crewed bunkers such that they were finished (if they were being maintained) within 4 hours. Whether or not they are "touched up" or done "complete" is the decision, but even a complete hand raking shouldn't take that long.

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael Whitaker,

Bob Randquist's three part Bunker Treatise can be found under the "Feature Interview" Section of GCA.com

Patrick_Mucci,

Thank you for pointing me to Mr. Randquist's interview. I found the following passage in part two to be particularly interesting:

Q:  How has all this time and thought and effort regarding bunker maintenance effected the original historical intent of a bunker as a hazard?

A:  Many golf course superintendents would agree that these bunker maintenance programs that produce playing conditions that provide a very low degree of difficulty are completely at odds with the definition of a golf course bunker as a hazard.

Whether we agree or not, for the past several years the perception and expectations that golfers have developed regarding bunkers has steadily shifted toward an attitude that bunkers should be much less hazardous, and that golf is a game that should always provide fair treatment for every golfer, with ‘bad luck’ never being a part of the game. As long as this thought trend continues and golfers are willing to provide the necessary financial resources, golf course superintendents will continue to strive to develop bunker maintenance programs that provide golfers with the bunker playing conditions they desire on a daily basis.

Hopefully, in the future the bunker maintenance pendulum will swing back the other direction and golf course bunkers will become more hazardous again. Until it does, golf course bunker maintenance will remain hazardous duty for the golf course superintendent.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

So someone else believes that bunkers have become “Child’s play” (my words) and are less of a hazard in modern times.

I totally agree with Mr. Randquist comment you printed. I do believe modern bunkers generate a minimal hazard and seem to be included in a course design to give the impression that the golfer is on a traditional course. In fact, most as redundant as a real hazards and are just for decoration, so why bother spending a large part of the maintenance budget on ineffective props.

Bunkers are hazards and sorry Sean the word hazard should mean what it projects, after all the early reports on new courses from the 19th Century referred to these courses having many hazards, the word bunker was not used that often.

Keep making golf easy to encourage more people to play golf, will in the end drive away golfers, because golf should be a challenge and it should not be made easy. It is a policy with its own built-in self-destruct sequence.

Melvyn   

[Sean_A]

Bunkers are hazards and sorry Sean the word hazard should mean what it projects, after all the early reports on new courses from the 19th Century referred to these courses having many hazards, the word bunker was not used that often.

Melvyn

You don't need to apologize to me because you have poor reading comprehension skills.  You are better off re-reading what I wrote and coming away with the correct meaning rather than your personal spin. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Thank you for your most kind words and drawing me to your last reply to my post. Bit strong, but I still believe we should re-use the traditional name, which is hazard. Only referring to the trap as a sand trap or bunker when directing ones attention to a specific obstacle. 

If it is not a hazard, then its there just for decoration, which is of little use to the golfer or club. IMHO, we need more testing or severe hazards – not the little slap on the wrist if the golfer gets it wrong. You take the risk, you must pay the price if you get it wrong. We should have deep bunkers on Fairways & Greens, forcing the golfer to retreat to exit if to close to the front face. There is no shame in re-calculating your strategy, if you fall into one of the many traps on a course. Its shows the metal and skill of not just the golfer, but also that of the designers which is what I believe the game of golf is all about.

Sean thanks for correcting my slovenly approach to your post.

Melvyn 

[Eric Morrison]

At Shenny, a municipal course, we have wide open fairways, few trees...100 traps. I think 95% are well placed. They make the player think and give them a sense of direction. There are a few that punish wayward shots immediately...Ross did that with short cross bunkers...Also, if one stops a ball from going OB maybe it is well placed. In any event, when some of my clientele are complaining about bunker conditions (after coughing up $25 to walk), and people are yelling "get in the trap" after a mishit, you know golfer expectations are out of control. Our bunkers are far from perfect, and thats the way I like it, it fits the links style, and thats the way it has to be anyway with our budget.

[Scott Warren]

If all golf clubs decided to burn their rakes and trash their Sand Pros, how long would it take before a majority of golfers accepted that a bunker was a funky place to end up and something to be avoided at all costs?

From reading these boards it seems as the years have gone on, more and more bunkers have ended up on golf courses. New courses have more than new designs of yesteryear, it seems, and old courses are getting more (just my observation) - has that occurred hand-in-hand with increasingly kind bunker conditioning?

If bunkers were an ugly place that offered an uncertain lie and a stern penalty, would designers use them more sparingly than they do now?

[Sean_A]

If bunkers were an ugly place that offered an uncertain lie and a stern penalty, would designers use them more sparingly than they do now?

Scott

Yes, I believe this is true.  Somehow we have gone from striving to make bunkers look natural to making them a pretty accessory.  If this is going to continue, I would rather we just revert back to trench bunkers ala Fowler style.  There was no grace or beauty in them, "but they are uncompromisngly bunkers...These bunkers are positive, direct, and need make no comment upon entering them...earthworks of some vanished tribe...with little scaling ladders at intervals which make me think of mediaeval sieges, and defenders with pots of boiling oil at the top."

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Now you are talking Hazards, but not certain we should go as far as hot oil (although I can think of some players I have encountered in the past who certainly would deserve that sort of treatment).

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

Sean

Now you are talking Hazards, but not certain we should go as far as hot oil (although I can think of some players I have encountered in the past who certainly would deserve that sort of treatment).

Melvyn

Melvyn

I have always championed tough bunkers.  What I don't champion is loads of bunkers.  I reckon once a course hits 50 the archie should take a long hard look at what he is doing and justify to himself their placement and cost.  If he has any doubt, he should consider other types "hazards" which may do the job just as well.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

I though you might be interested in a clip from a speech made on the 31st December 1886 by Mr R.B. Finlay Q.C. & M.P.  I have cut out most of his comments just picked up the part about Bunkers. I will leave it to you to read the short clip.

It seems that they were talking about bunkers being effective hazards way back then. We still do not seem to have learnt the lesson why we have bunkers on a course.

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

I can see the argurment of fewer bunkers and ones that are there are substantial hazards but one of the problems with modern golf is Golfer A hits it 320 yards off the tee, golfer B 270 yards golfer C 230 yards and golfer D 200 yards. Even saying you can have 60 yards difference in front to back tees, you still need 60 yards length of effective hazards. That is why we often see clusters of three and four traps. 50 bunkers per course is 3 per hole (2 on the short holes). The whole situation that players hit +/- 100 yards makes it very tough to effectively make the driving interesting and challenging for all. A % ball could help older courses play to the original intent.
I do like the idea of a golf course with no rakes in the bunkers and they are just let go or perhaps raked occasionally, although when it gets dry and my ball is in a footprint I will be annoyed, hence it may just be an idea to like rather than reality.

[Sean_A]

I can see the argurment of fewer bunkers and ones that are there are substantial hazards but one of the problems with modern golf is Golfer A hits it 320 yards off the tee, golfer B 270 yards golfer C 230 yards and golfer D 200 yards. Even saying you can have 60 yards difference in front to back tees, you still need 60 yards length of effective hazards. That is why we often see clusters of three and four traps. 50 bunkers per course is 3 per hole (2 on the short holes). The whole situation that players hit +/- 100 yards makes it very tough to effectively make the driving interesting and challenging for all. A % ball could help older courses play to the original intent.
I do like the idea of a golf course with no rakes in the bunkers and they are just let go or perhaps raked occasionally, although when it gets dry and my ball is in a footprint I will be annoyed, hence it may just be an idea to like rather than reality.

Adrian

Sure its difficult to design a course which is challenging and interesting for all, but if you knock out the top and bottom 5% of golfers, it becomes much easier.  At some point, archies must realize that they can't build something for everyone on all holes.  This is some sort of myth passed down by the ODGs.  That isn't to say you can't try to engage as many players as possible and one excelent way to do so is to vary the hazards rather than relying on bunkering so heavily.  We know of plenty of courses that have a relatively small number of bunkers and aren't overly long which nearly everybody raves about.  Its time to stop making excuses and get on with the job without a heavy slant toward low cappers. In the long run, you will have more interesting courses which more golfers can enjoy.

Melvyn

If you believe believe your grandfather's(?) schtick, then make your way to Kington.  It will make you believe that golf design is far more than slapping down 100 bunkers.

Ciao