Sand all over a Pete Dye course used for the PGA; it's...Kiawah

[Phil McDade]

The PGA championship will be held in two years at Pete Dye's Ocean Course at Kiawah. Things I'm not interested in pursuing in this thread:

-- The architectural bona fides of The Ocean Course vis-a-vis Whistling Straits;

-- Whistling Straits as a piece of architecture (see many other threads);

-- How allegedly bad architecture leads to allegedly dumb local rules and allegedly dumber decisions by golfers at recently played PGA championships (see the Dustin Johnson-authored thread).

Things I am genuinely interested in finding out/discussing:

-- How are sandy areas treated for play currently at Kiawah?

-- Do any current local rules for Kiawah differentiate between sandy waste areas (as defined locally) vs. clearly defined/built fairway-greenside bunkers, which are thus viewed as hazards?

-- Will spectators at the 2012 PGA, in all likelihood, be able to walk on areas of the course that contain sand? Looking at an aerial, it appears as if they will, and my recollection of the 1991 Ryder Cup was that they (spectators) were.

-- Is it reasonable/easy to distinguish between sandy areas of the course -- and say they are not hazards -- and fairway/greenside bunkers, which clearly are hazards? Again, looking at an aerial, I can see the potential for this to be a difficult distinction -- notably the multi-fingered bunker to the left of the 18th green that looks like it transitions into one large sandy/waste area; the rightside and leftside fairway bunkers on #11 that "bleed" into a walking path (presumably to be used by spectators); similar fairway and greenside bunkering at #16; the entire left side of #15, from tee to green. That's just the back nine; the front nine looks similar in many respects.

Thanks for your thoughts and insights.

[PCCraig]

Phil:

From what I remember of TOC the greenside bunkers can be identified as "bunkers" because they have rakes next to them and are more clearly defined. Everything else through the green is played as a waste bunker.

Maybe the PGA will rule that everything will be played as a hazard the same way they did this year in order to avoid any confusion?

Perhaps Mike Vegas can clarify.

[Jim Briggs]

Phil,

If I remember correctly from my play there earlier this year, we were told only the greenside bunkers on 17 played as a hazard and that every other sandy area on the course did not, making it fairly simple.

I'm sure Mike V. will chime in.

[Phil McDade]

Pat:

That's what I was thinking they might do.

Part of what I'm trying to get at -- prompted somewhat by comments on the WS threads -- is the challenge with some courses in distinguishing between bunkers as hazards and sandy/waste areas that are not hazards (or at least not defined that way by a local rule). Some of the comments on the WS threads suggests that's an easy task, esp. with thousands of spectators, and having been to the course, I'd suggest it's not. But it looks just as difficult, if not moreso, at Kiawah.

Don't know if you have time, but take a look at an aerial of the Ocean Course, and in particular the left, greenside bunker at #18, the one with the fingers extending toward the green. It expands into what looks like a waste area, totally impracticable to maintain as a bunker via a rake, and a place where specators might be allowed to stand (and I think they were, during the Ryder Cup, but I may be mistaken about that). And if Dustin can mail a tee shot that far off line at WS, I can easily see him (and others) sending one toward that waste area filled with spectators in two years.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

If I remember correctly from my play there earlier this year, we were told only the greenside bunkers on 17 played as a hazard and that every other sandy area on the course did not, making it fairly simple.

I'm sure Mike V. will chime in.

Jim:

Thanks; appreciate the comments of someone who's played there (I haven't).

But it raises another question, if that's the case. Presumably the rationale (and others with a better grip on the rules can certainly chime in) behind not being able to ground a club in a hazard is to not gain an advantage. That is, the golfer has played a poor shot, and the rules of golf essentially say: You're in a hazard, and the rules aren't going to allow you to test the ground, or remove objects, that are allowed on other parts of the course. So if I'm in the greenside bunker at #18, one of those finger-like protrusions, and I'm not sure of the firmness of the sand, or I've got a seashell behind my ball, I can test the sand/remove the shell? Is that any better within the spirit of the game than what Johnson faced yesterday?

I'm not trying to be pedantic here; just wondering how this may all play out in two years.

[Harvey Dickens]

Played the Ocean Course a few weeks ago. We were told ALL sand areas were waste bunkers. My playing partner hit into a greenside bunker on the 3rd or 4th hole and started raking the sand after hitting. The caddie asked him where he found the rake, he went on to comment that the grounds crew had messed up and left the rake out there. Never saw another rake the rest of the day.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Sorry...  I didn't see this post until today.  During the Ryder Cup in 1991 and the 2007 Senior PGA all of the sand was played as "transition areas," i.e. players could ground their clubs and take practice swings.  From my understanding from Kerry Haigh, no final decision will be made on the matter until a few weeks out from the championship.  Personally, I would hope that it's all played as transition area although there are some sand areas that are not attached to the natural dunes structure (i.e. completely surrounded by tended turf) - greenside on No. 2 (new), three fairway pot bunkers and two green-side traps on No. 4, pot bunker in front of No. 5, greenside bunker on No. 7, pot bunker in 9 fairway, greenside bunker behind No. 10, fairway pot bunkers, small little bunker in front of green and greenside bunker on No. 11, three fairway bunkers on No. 12 and two fairway bunkers and one greenside bunker on No. 13 (plus I think Pete's tweaking the bunkering on the inside of the dogleg on No. 18 that may produce some bunkers with turf surrounding them. 

I haven't played the course since Pete's been out there this summer but I will be playing it on Wednesday.  I'll be able to give a more detailed report then...

[Jerry Kluger]

Easy solution - they are all bunkers but no rakes - may the best man win!

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

Thanks -- I'm genuinely interested in how this works at Kiawah, which seems to have more sandy/waste areas than WStraits, and thus might lead to the kinds of issues raised in the PGA this past August.

[RJ_Daley]

It has been quite a few years since I played TOC, but it seems to me that they either have to declare it all trans-waste or all hazard bunkers now grounding.  But, as Mike explains there are a number of those area surrounded by turf that have no doubt the look of a bunker while others really blend into the sea grasses and don't have any real line of demarcation between turf, native grasses and sand.  Whistling Straits in my view as a no brainer to say they all are to be played as hazards.  Even the scruffy ones that were in some places trampled by spectators were clearly bunkes with interfaces of sand and turf or rough.  When you say you can't ground and there is any sand under or immediately around where a ball lies, I don't think it takes a detective to see you shouldn't ground a club and at the very worst, ask the official. 

So, for my recollection, because the interfaces are more dicey at TOC, I'd say play them all like waste-transition areas, and just go ahead and let them ground it and be done with it.  It will be the same golf course for all of them then and no hair splitting will ocurr. 

The real question is will they round up the big gators when all those spectators are backing up near the waterways?  And, is there a snake problem with that many people trampling around? 

Mike V., has there been documented snake bites?