Why aren't more approaches/surrounds to bunkers maintained like this ?

[Carl Johnson]

While I absolutely love the look and playing condition around the bunkers at National (and Ireland and the UK), the next time you play a parkland course with rough collars, try to envision what you would have to do to get rid of the collars. It is not a simple matter of mowing between the green and the bunker. The bunkers almost always are 100% surrounded by rough, so you would have to basically widen the fairways on both sides, and extend that look back from the green by 50 yards or more, and continue fairway all the way around the bunkers to make it look right.  It is a HUGE task.

Why not just mow up to the edge on the front side and fairway side (or geen side) of the bunker, and leave the rough to the back and outside?  As a golfer, that would make sense to me.  I am not sure why you'd need to widen the fairway much more.  Sure, you would not want the transition to be abrupt, why would it take 50 yards or more?  Admittedly I'm neither an architect or greenkeeper, but, again, as a golfer this would seem to be possible.

[Bill Brightly]

While I absolutely love the look and playing condition around the bunkers at National (and Ireland and the UK), the next time you play a parkland course with rough collars, try to envision what you would have to do to get rid of the collars. It is not a simple matter of mowing between the green and the bunker. The bunkers almost always are 100% surrounded by rough, so you would have to basically widen the fairways on both sides, and extend that look back from the green by 50 yards or more, and continue fairway all the way around the bunkers to make it look right.  It is a HUGE task.

Why not just mow up to the edge on the front side and fairway side (or geen side) of the bunker, and leave the rough to the back and outside?  As a golfer, that would make sense to me.  I am not sure why you'd need to widen the fairway much more.  Sure, you would not want the transition to be abrupt, why would it take 50 yards or more?  Admittedly I'm neither an architect or greenkeeper, but, again, as a golfer this would seem to be possible.

I hope a superintendent answers, but rough grass is usually different than fairway. And I think it looks bad when part of a bunker has a fairway border and the rest has rough collar. Go look at a bunker complex and try to envision it...Where does the rough start?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

This is the same question we've had on this website a number of times. For starters, or at first, I think the answers are best left to the maintanenance guys on this website. The last thing we need is a bunch of arrogant know-it-all like you to try to tell them they know their job better than they do!

Clearly, this, amongst many areas, is not your area of expertise.
This has NOTHING to do with maintainance, it's got everything to do with the will/perception of the membership !

But my first logical thought is if one can do it why can't others? 

You probably missed it, but, that's the title of this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat: Let me ask you this: do you have a problem with the stairs in the bunker? 

NONE what so ever !


NGLA is one of the gems but how do you feel about those steps? 

I feel fine with them.

The bunker was built/created so the steep slope was created and is it perhaps too severe if it requires stairs to safely get to the playing surface? 

NONSENSE

These same steps are abundant at GCGC and have worked well for over a century.

AND, they have nothing to do with how the fairway is maintained up to the bunker.

Do you know if the stairs were put in when the course was built?

Yes, they were.
And, steps were an integral part of many bunkers at NGLA, from the inception, including # 2.

[Sean_A]

While I absolutely love the look and playing condition around the bunkers at National (and Ireland and the UK), the next time you play a parkland course with rough collars, try to envision what you would have to do to get rid of the collars. It is not a simple matter of mowing between the green and the bunker. The bunkers almost always are 100% surrounded by rough, so you would have to basically widen the fairways on both sides, and extend that look back from the green by 50 yards or more, and continue fairway all the way around the bunkers to make it look right.  It is a HUGE task.

Why not just mow up to the edge on the front side and fairway side (or geen side) of the bunker, and leave the rough to the back and outside?  As a golfer, that would make sense to me.  I am not sure why you'd need to widen the fairway much more.  Sure, you would not want the transition to be abrupt, why would it take 50 yards or more?  Admittedly I'm neither an architect or greenkeeper, but, again, as a golfer this would seem to be possible.

I hope a superintendent answers, but rough grass is usually different than fairway. And I think it looks bad when part of a bunker has a fairway border and the rest has rough collar. Go look at a bunker complex and try to envision it...Where does the rough start?

Bill

Some of the best bunkering in golf cuts in from the rough on the back side, but has fairway leading into the sand - think diagonal bunkers - very effective design. 

When I mentioned a buffer zone for carts I wasn't suggesting carts would fall in the bunker, but that the edges of the bunker would become compact and hard to keep grass on thus leading to easier conditions for flooding and erosion.  I absolutely hate the look of rough ringed bunkers as it makes an already obviously man-made hazard trying to not look man-made, but being even more compromised by the ring. 

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Keeping carts a min. Of 10 yards away from bunkers is SOP. Too bad not many customers know this. Anyone care to guess why they don't know?

[David Lott]

Why?

Too hard. (Members would whine and complain.)

Lack of imagination. (In maintenance and design.)

Perhaps most important, many bunkers are too big for where they are placed. The bunker in the photo is small but difficult--the lack of grass collar makes it effectively larger without being physically larger' providing visual, strategic and maintenance advantages. I'll bet the hazard looks deceivingly avoidable from a distance.

Fabulous photo, fabulous look.

You are lucky to be able to play there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just to clarify an issue, let me state that golf carts are NOT a problem.

If someone drives into this bunker, any other bunker on the golf course, or the front gates, they're either impaired vis a vis drugs and/or alcohol, or have fallen asleep at the wheel.

THE issue is, ELIMINATING buffers of rough that act as a safety net to slow down and prevent balls from entering a bunker.

OFTEN, it's NOT a maintainance issue, but, a cultural issue.

[Mike McGuire]

  NGLA is one of the gems but how do you feel about those steps?  The bunker was built/created so the steep slope was created and is it perhaps too severe if it requires stairs to safely get to the playing surface? 

I like the look of the stairs.

You want the sides steep so balls do not get hung up on them.

The stairs make it safer to get into the bunker and keep golfers off the faces.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think it was Pete Dye who made the observation that grass grown on steep slopes doesn't require as much mowing because it grows slower and is (I think he said) not as lush.

A plus for promoting steep/deep bunkers.

[Steve Burrows]

OFTEN, it's NOT a maintainance issue, but, a cultural issue.

This may be the first instance I have seen Mr. Mucci qualify a statement in a manner that suggests anything less than an absolute right or wrong answer.  In this case, it certainly seems appropriate.  Though I honestly believe that this issue is in large measure one of maintenance, I do think it derives from a more pervasive cultural perception of golf course aesthetics.  To answer the original question: despite the apparent strategic advantages of bunkers and surrounds maintained as shown in the image, many golfers, and perhaps more importantly, many developers, financiers and owners just don't want to see things this way.  Once/If they do, the market will respond and we may well see more of this. 

However, as a this is a cultural concern, we should probably treat it as any other cultural concern (like religion, dress, etc.), and not assume that one method of maintenance or design is the best or only proper way, and that all others are inferior or somehow lacking in strategy or even respect for the history of the game.  The choices of these owners, designers or superintendent's are equally as valid as the next guys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

When I referenced "culture" I was referencing the word in the context of the American penchant for "fairness" that appears to be systemic at American golf clubs.

Most clubs insist upon the buffer of rough to impede balls from entering bunkers and water hazards.
Some of these buffers can be 5 yards or more.

In the UK you tend to see just the opposite and the picture posted is the norm rather than the exception.

[Mike McGuire]

Much like greens shrinking due to mowing  - so do fairways. The rough buffers around bunkers expand every year. At some point, if your paying attention, you have to reestablish the fairway lines.

Putting it back is expensive and this extra expense should be considered when people play the "extra maintenance" card when talking about fairway right to the bunker.

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

So are you really only asking "why isn't American golf course design and maintenance the same as golf course design and maintenance in the UK?"

I suppose there are any number of reasons for this, right?  Not the least of which is the desire to do something different than the other guy, in the hopes that these changes promote aesthetic or professional advancement.  In other words, how could American golf differentiate itself from golf in the UK without some philosophical shift in the the way the game was developed and/or presented in the landscape.  Did not America have to make some changes in our form of government after the Revolutionary War in order to make America measurably different from that of our colonizer?  It was a "cultural" change that separated us from those that came before, for better or worse.  Golf design and maintenance is surely not fundamentally different in this philosophical shift, is it?

[Roger Wolfe]

Great thread.  But I still want to know how they get the clippings out of the bunker after they flymow.  I have never
seen a flymower with a grass catcher.  I guess they just blow the clippings onto the banks???  We blow ours out of the
flat side of the bunker.  I don't see a flat side on this one...

[TEPaul]

"When I referenced "culture" I was referencing the word in the context of the American penchant for "fairness" that appears to be systemic at American golf clubs.

Most clubs insist upon the buffer of rough to impede balls from entering bunkers and water hazards.
Some of these buffers can be 5 yards or more."


Those two sentences which follow one another in a post above might be a total nonsequitor in the context of the subject of this thread. And secondly, the second sentence could be about as factually incorrect as any statement ever put on this DG. I doubt less than 1/10th of 1 percent of club golfers ever even thought of such a thing much less most clubs and their 'culture' . The evolution of rough grass around bunkers and water hazards and such in America goes back a very long way (probably to the beginning) and seemingly had to do with other things than fairness.

Frankly, in recent years I've seen a ground swell of clubs and memberships in America who very much want to do away with those rough surrounds but the answer to their wishes and demands are anything but obvious or easy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

So are you really only asking "why isn't American golf course design and maintenance the same as golf course design and maintenance in the UK?"
No, that's not what I'm asking.

I suppose there are any number of reasons for this, right? 
Not the least of which is the desire to do something different than the other guy, in the hopes that these changes promote aesthetic or professional advancement. 

It's got NOTHING to do with aesthetics.
It's about "playability"

In other words, how could American golf differentiate itself from golf in the UK without some philosophical shift in the the way the game was developed and/or presented in the landscape. 

Did not America have to make some changes in our form of government after the Revolutionary War in order to make America measurably different from that of our colonizer?  It was a "cultural" change that separated us from those that came before, for better or worse. 
Golf design and maintenance is surely not fundamentally different in this philosophical shift, is it?

Yes, it is different.
My issue deals with functionality, not just being different.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"When I referenced "culture" I was referencing the word in the context of the American penchant for "fairness" that appears to be systemic at American golf clubs.

Most clubs insist upon the buffer of rough to impede balls from entering bunkers and water hazards.
Some of these buffers can be 5 yards or more."


Those two sentences which follow one another in a post above might be a total nonsequitor in the context of the subject of this thread.


Then you didn't understand those two sentences and you don't understand the subject of this thread.

And secondly, the second sentence could be about as factually incorrect as any statement ever put on this DG. I doubt less than 1/10th of 1 percent of club golfers ever even thought of such a thing much less most clubs and their 'culture' .


The second sentence is factually accurate.
Club golfers do think about their ball rolling into bunkers and water hazards.
They think about how to prevent that.
Buffers of rough are their answer.
The "culture" is the culture of "fairness"
For you to deny its existance shows how out of touch you are with today's golfers.

The evolution of rough grass around bunkers and water hazards and such in America goes back a very long way (probably to the beginning) and seemingly had to do with other things than fairness.

Such as ?

Frankly, in recent years I've seen a ground swell of clubs and memberships in America who very much want to do away with those rough surrounds but the answer to their wishes and demands are anything but obvious or easy.

Could you name ten (10) clubs that want to do away with the buffers of rough ?

And, can you tell us why the ability to remove them isn't obvious or easy ?

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

Your question may have nothing to do with aesthetics, but the answer itself seems intimately tied with it.  If we assume that the strategy and playability of a golf course is superior when bunkers are designed and maintained as your initial image suggests, and we also take your assumption that many, if not most, American golf courses do not choose this method, the we must admit that the reason that these courses do not maintain bunkers this way is either that we deliberately choose to create inferior fields of play (which I would assume most designers and superintendents would disagree with), or there is some other reason why this phenomenon exists, and this MAY be a function of aesthetic preferences.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your question may have nothing to do with aesthetics, but the answer itself seems intimately tied with it.  If we assume that the strategy and playability of a golf course is superior when bunkers are designed and maintained as your initial image suggests, and we also take your assumption that many, if not most, American golf courses do not choose this method, the we must admit that the reason that these courses do not maintain bunkers this way is either that we deliberately choose to create inferior fields of play (which I would assume most designers and superintendents would disagree with), or there is some other reason why this phenomenon exists, and this MAY be a function of aesthetic preferences.   

I agree that there's some other reason.  I disagree that it's related to aesthetics.
What's aesthetically displeasing in the photo posted in the first thread ?

It can be and probably is the element of "fairness" that's responsible for the buffers of rough surrounding or fronting hazards.

The play of the game and its penal nature gets muted if buffers of rough are inserted to help avoid a more dire penalty.

Sadly, It's an American phenomenon.

[Matt OBrien]

I had the privilege of playing Chicago Golf Club on Monday after the midwest mashie and I witnessed golf course maintenance and its finest. On the first hole I saw a few men working on the fairway bunker on the right side of the fairway. I figured that they were raking the bunkers after all of the rain they had the previous week. I was wrong and they were actually cutting the grass around the bunker with scissors. They were on their hands and knees cutting grass with scissors to make it perfect. Do any other courses practice this?

[jonathan_becker]

I had the privilege of playing Chicago Golf Club on Monday after the midwest mashie and I witnessed golf course maintenance and its finest. On the first hole I saw a few men working on the fairway bunker on the right side of the fairway. I figured that they were raking the bunkers after all of the rain they had the previous week. I was wrong and they were actually cutting the grass around the bunker with scissors. They were on their hands and knees cutting grass with scissors to make it perfect. Do any other courses practice this?

Double Eagle

[Bill Brightly]

Scissors? I wonder what CBM would say about that...

[Steve Burrows]

I had the privilege of playing Chicago Golf Club on Monday after the midwest mashie and I witnessed golf course maintenance and its finest. On the first hole I saw a few men working on the fairway bunker on the right side of the fairway. I figured that they were raking the bunkers after all of the rain they had the previous week. I was wrong and they were actually cutting the grass around the bunker with scissors. They were on their hands and knees cutting grass with scissors to make it perfect. Do any other courses practice this?

What an absolutely phenomenal waste of resources.  No level of playability is worth that, irrespective of the pedigree of the golf course, or the budget they may have at their disposal.  They would be better served donating those hourly wages to cancer research or at least have those employees do something that is actually meaningful to make the playing experience better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

That sounds excessively excessive.
I was aware that ANGC trimmed the creek fronting # 13 that way, but, that was for the cameras.

It doesn't take that much to cut the fairway as it's pictured below.