[Chip Gaskins]

I was not going to even ask this question, but after a thread poped up on "diviots" at Merion I thought this would be a fair game.

First off, I have to applaud the greens crew for making the best of less than stellar weather conditions.  I rained A LOT on Thursday and Friday and when I was there on Saturday the course was perfect.  Kudos!

I took these two pictures at the Walker Cup...





These two bunkers are 20-30 feet apart on the outside of the dogleg of hole #14 (my favorite on the course!).

They seem to be the absolute opposite of in both strategy (i.e. bunker plays bigger than it is by balls running into them versus balls get hung up in the rough instead of bounding into the sand hazard) and maintenance practice.

Any thoughts out there on why two bunkers on the same hole within a few yards of each other would be maintained so different?

Thanks in advance, this is a very honest question of mine.

Chip

[Mike Sweeney]

I don't know the answer. From memory, that fairway directly into the bunker in the top picture seems new to me at Merion.  I like it.

My guess is it was a trial in the Sean Arble debate that a bunker should be able to gather (run in) balls in addition to accepting aerial shots. That corner on 14 would be a good place to compare and contrast results for a US Open.

[Mark_Fine]

I don't know the answer but one thing is for sure, you are better off in the hazard! 

[Sean_A]

Chip

I don't know why the bunker surrounds would be maintained so differently.  I think the land slightly falls toward those bunkers down toward the 18th so its seems a perfect opportunity to have run n' grab bunkers like the first photo.  I am pretty sure that first bunker looked that way when I was there 1.5 years ago.  The only other bunker I recall having a fairway front was the centre-line bunker on #5.  To me, there is a real dilemma.  I think the hairy bunkers with rough surrounds looks better than the combo of fairway fronts and hairy back n' sides, but I think the open fronts would play much better. 

Ciao 

[D_Malley]

could it be that the first bunker is much more in play from the tee with a bouncing/rolling drive, and the second bunker is not.

[JMEvensky]

I don't know the answer but one thing is for sure, you are better off in the hazard! 

Is that a good thing?

It always strikes me as odd when a hazard is preferable to grass.I think I have a problem when hazards are safe havens.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

They probably mow closer to front of the second bunker (than the first) because the ground happens to be flatter next to the one where the fairway cut meets the sand.

I was standing next to the top of one of those bunkers during the WC and it took a bunch of us almost five minutes just to find a player's ball in the top of the grass surround. He ended up taking an Unplayable and dropping pretty far back.

[Adam Clayman]

I'm partial to the first photo's presentation. I like the look and implied playability. The second photo is routine maintenance practice all over the country and makes me cringe every time I see it. This has been discussed many times in the past and my hope is that it is a test. One that passes with flying colors.

[Mark_Fine]

JMEvensky,
I tend to agree with your comment but this often comes down to personal preference.  I've never been a big fan of the TV commentator stating, "He's better off in that bunker Johnny - it's a much easier shot from there".  On the other hand, one could say that "the hazard" is really much more than just the sand, which in the case of Merion's bunkers, is surely the case.  The sand there is actually the least hazardous part of the "bunker". 

Moreover, I like bunkers that gather balls into them.  Rough in front of bunkers (especially fairway bunkers) tends to keep balls out which mitigates the intent of the hazard.  I call bunkers that are near the fairway but surrounded by rough, "rough" bunkers vs. calling them "fairway" bunkers.  Matt might be experimenting with the different looks/playing characteristics which is why they are finished off the way they are.  Adds a little variety. 
Mark

[JMEvensky]

JMEvensky,
I tend to agree with your comment but this often comes down to personal preference.  I've never been a big fan of the TV commentator stating, "He's better off in that bunker Johnny - it's a much easier shot from there".  On the other hand, one could say that "the hazard" is really much more than just the sand, which in the case of Merion's bunkers, is surely the case.  The sand there is actually the least hazardous part of the "bunker". 

Moreover, I like bunkers that gather balls into them.  Rough in front of bunkers (especially fairway bunkers) tends to keep balls out which mitigates the intent of the hazard.  I call bunkers that are near the fairway but surrounded by rough, "rough" bunkers vs. calling them "fairway" bunkers.  Matt might be experimenting with the different looks/playing characteristics which is why they are finished off the way they are.  Adds a little variety. 
Mark

Granted that Merion has a different constituency than most and these pictures are from the golf course hosting a big tournament.It's probably not fair to use them as example.I have no clue as to whether Merion looks like this every day but I assume their membership likes it that way.If so,more power to them.

It just so happens that I've been having the same discussion at my place which doesn't have a membership with either Merion's or Walker Cup players' skill level.When you hear a 15 handicap yell "get in the bunker",I think you need to take another look at your maintenance practices.I too use the phrase "rough bunkers" but I don't think I'm having much luck in convincing people of "why" it's wrong.

Today,someone told me  "it's the Open thing to do".This from someone whose only Open experience has been / will be on the couch in front of his TV.

I concede this horse has been flogged to death here before.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()