An attractive nuisance ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sure, WS looks great from the blimp, but, is it an accident waiting to happen for competitive golfers ?

What differentiates a shallow, ill defined Pete Dye bunker from an area where the grass has been worn away by the gallery ?

Should a golfer, competing in a Major championship be subjected to bunkers, random bunkers, with deep footprints and other quirks not intended by the architect, event host and sponsor ?

I guess the bottom line question is:

Is WS fit to host a Major championship ?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Patrick - Absolutely yes. WS has been the most talked about golf course throughout our membership so I think the majority of people saw this course as great. My take is Dustin Johnson just made a mistake, it was his fault, he should know the rules.

[JESII]

I think we need to hold our golf stars to a higher standard...as opposed to holding their hand.

[Matt_Cohn]

I never thought I'd see so many people on this website ADVOCATING changing a golf course for the sake of one week every five years. And to fit more neatly into the definition of "bunker", at that.

If there are three things that almost everyone here can agree upon, aren't they

1. Don't change great golf courses for the sake of one week every few years,
2. Outside of the main playing areas, a less manicured look is good, and
3. Bunkers shouldn't be maintained as perfectly as they generally these days.

Seems to me like half of this site has gone straight-up hypocritical because a pro golfer failed to read the local rules.

[John Moore II]

Sure, WS looks great from the blimp, but, is it an accident waiting to happen for competitive golfers ?

It sure seems like it. But isn't a difficult test what we expect from a major championship venue?

What differentiates a shallow, ill defined Pete Dye bunker from an area where the grass has been worn away by the gallery ?

That is the (quite literally) million dollar question. The bunkers are terribly defined in the ground and even more terribly defined in the local rule put forward by the PGA. There needs to be far better definition there in competition...the PGA actually said in its rule that the bunkers would be defined by blue dots/lines if necessary...did anyone see any blue lines around that dirt hole? I sure didn't

Should a golfer, competing in a Major championship be subjected to bunkers, random bunkers, with deep footprints and other quirks not intended by the architect, event host and sponsor ?

If it is truly defined as a hazard, I am fine with it, but it needs to be clearly, plainly defined what is and isn't hazard. That wasn't the case, obviously, or none of this would have happened
I guess the bottom line question is:

Is WS fit to host a Major championship ?

Certainly it is fit to host a major. It produces great drama coming down the stretch, but 18 needs some slight fixes and the 'bunkers' either need to be better defined or many of them covered over.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, how are we hypocritical?

1. Don't change great golf courses for the sake of one week every few years

I agree. A great golf course should not need to change. I think many of us would challenge the notion that WS is a "great golf course".

2. Outside of the main playing areas, a less manicured look is good, and

Again, agreed and they should be played as waste areas. It would be fine to play regular bunkers without rakes too, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

3. Bunkers shouldn't be maintained as perfectly as they generally these days.

Yes, because they should be hazards. But they should also be clearly defined and not look like other bare spots left by foot traffic.

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick - Absolutely yes. WS has been the most talked about golf course throughout our membership so I think the majority of people saw this course as great. My take is Dustin Johnson just made a mistake, it was his fault, he should know the rules.

I agree with the premise that a competitor should know the rules but what Johnson seemed to be ignorant of was that he was in a bunker at all. He said it never occurred to him that it was a bunker.  He's been chastised for not reading the rules sheet but that wouldn't matter if he didn't think he was in a bunker, waste or otherwise.



 

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt, how are we hypocritical?

1. Don't change great golf courses for the sake of one week every few years

I agree. A great golf course should not need to change. I think many of us would challenge the notion that WS is a "great golf course".

2. Outside of the main playing areas, a less manicured look is good, and

Again, agreed and they should be played as waste areas. It would be fine to play regular bunkers without rakes too, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

3. Bunkers shouldn't be maintained as perfectly as they generally these days.

Yes, because they should be hazards. But they should also be clearly defined and not look like other bare spots left by foot traffic.

1. People here are talking about eliminating the bunkers to make rulings easier in major championships - about "making it ready" for 2015 and 2020. The maintenance cost argument was debunked, and I don't think anyone can argue that replacing those bunkers with lost-ball fescue grass would make the course more playable for the average golfer.

2. As the PGA guy said, you can't call 900 of them waste bunkers and 300 regular bunkers. And calling them all waste bunkers flaunts the rules more than any of the alternatives. If it has sand in it, it's a bunker.

3. Really?

Sand Hills


Clear Creek


Pacific Dunes


Maidstone


Friar's Head

[JC Jones]

Do we seriously need another thread about this?

[Phil McDade]

Matt Cohn:

Thank you -- and thank you again -- for posting those pictures.

[A.G._Crockett]

1. Has there EVER been a situation in which spectators continually walked thru "bunkers" at a major championship?

2. Has there EVER been a situation in which several dozen spectators were standing in a "bunker" waiting when a player arrived and were still with that player in the "bunker" on the 72nd hole of a major championship while he played a shot?

3. Has there EVER been a situation in which the maintenance crew says that every time they mow the fescue, they find another "bunker"?

4. Does anybody doubt that other players in the tournament did EXACTLY what Johnson did, likewise not realizing that they were in a "bunker" until late yesterday or today when they saw what happened to Johnson?

When you condemn Johnson for not knowing the local rule, remember that he had been on site all week, and played practice rounds and 71 holes of the tournament.  If he still didn't understand it Sunday evening on the 72nd hole, I'm going to hazard a guess that he was far, far from the only competitor who did not understand this.  It was a silly situation in/on a silly feature, and Johnson has to bear the weight of that. 

I've played a number of courses with both bunkers and waste areas, as have most others here.  The rule of thumb has always been that if there are rakes, it's a bunker.  No rakes, waste area.  What would have been wrong with that?

[Bill_McBride]

[quote author=A.G._Crockett link=topic=45565.msg999286#msg999286 date=1282008281
I've played a number of courses with both bunkers and waste areas, as have most others here.  The rule of thumb has always been that if there are rakes, it's a bunker.  No rakes, waste area.  What would have been wrong with that?
[/quote]

Our club is the same way.  We have both.  No rake, it's a waste bunker.  On another thread I asked if WS has 1200 rakes.  And said I'd like to have the rake concession!

[Pete_Pittock]

What is the status when a rake may or may not have been appropriated by the gallery?

[Bill_McBride]

What is the status when a rake may or may not have been appropriated by the gallery?

Just order a new one from me, things will work out.   

Good question though.  I remember the first time I played Bay Hill.  The rakes were on the back of the golf carts.  I left mine in the front left bunker on #1.  Did a lot of shoe raking after that.   

[William_G]

@ Shivas..I agree with the thought about testing the hazard as you are walking around with your club as many golfers do, where does one hazard end and the other begin? Or does testing the sand in one bunker on the hole you are playing by walking through a bunker, qualify as a rules violation?

@AG..there is no doubt that other players grounded their clubs in the sand during the championship without penalizing themselves.

What a f'ed up design and implementation of rules!

[archie_struthers]

 



For years Pine Valley had "all sand playable as hazard" right on the scorecard ...all the caddies knew there was no grounding of clubs in the sand....and relayed it to the players.....seems like it worked for us there

[jeffwarne]

For years Pine Valley had "all sand playable as hazard" right on the scorecard ...all the caddies knew there was no grounding of clubs in the sand....and relayed it to the players.....seems like it worked for us there

we have a winner

[A.G._Crockett]

For years Pine Valley had "all sand playable as hazard" right on the scorecard ...all the caddies knew there was no grounding of clubs in the sand....and relayed it to the players.....seems like it worked for us there

Two questions:

1. (Serious) You have written this in the past tense; has this changed at PV?

2. (Tongue in Cheek) How many times did you have a few thousand spectators walking through the sandy areas all week and and a few dozen standing there with you while you played your shot?

[JESII]

AG,

I can answer with confidence but not as much experience as Archie...yep that was a shot at the old guy...

1 - The only thing that has changes with respect to the bunker treatment is that the club rakes them a bit more frequently...but no rakes there.

2 - Once a year - Crump final...a few thousand is a stretch, but I watched a few with close to 1,000.

[Gary Slatter]

What is the status when a rake may or may not have been appropriated by the gallery?

that would make it a waste bunker

[John Moore II]

For years Pine Valley had "all sand playable as hazard" right on the scorecard ...all the caddies knew there was no grounding of clubs in the sand....and relayed it to the players.....seems like it worked for us there

That is  a good, unambiguous definition. The PGA definition said areas designed and built as bunkers. So, as I said before, that seems to me as  a situation where the player or even the rules official must determine in the middle of a competition what is and isn't a bunker based on whether or not they felt Mr. Dye intended for this to be a bunker or not. That's a really terrible situation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For years Pine Valley had "all sand playable as hazard" right on the scorecard ...all the caddies knew there was no grounding of clubs in the sand....and relayed it to the players.....seems like it worked for us there

Archie,

So, if a golfer buzzed his drive far right, into the woods on # 4, # 7, or he hooked it far left into the woods on # 12, 13 or 15 and the ball came to rest ( the caddy placed his ball  ) on a small, flat sandy area, that area would be deemed a bunker ?

I wonder how many people walking or climbing through those vast hazards like on # 16, inadvertantly grounded their club 40 yards away from their ball ?

And, how many golfers, walking through the woods, grounded their club as they walked to their ball 200+ yards away, but, in the same hazard ?

On the other hand, when I first began playing PV, in the early 60's, there was far more sand and far fewer trees.
In fact, if you look at the aerials circa the early 20's, it's almost all sand, so I can see how that vestigial sentence on the scorecard came into existance.

Sorry I missed you at HC last weekend.
The course, weather and most importantly, the company were terrific.

Will you be there this weekend ?

[Mark Pearce]

For years Pine Valley had "all sand playable as hazard" right on the scorecard ...all the caddies knew there was no grounding of clubs in the sand....and relayed it to the players.....seems like it worked for us there

That is  a good, unambiguous definition.

I'm not so sure. Under that definition a divot on a sandy soiled course (or one filled in with sandy mixture) becomes a bunker.  That can't be right.