[Bart Bradley]

Okay, conventional wisdom on this site clearly states that placing a bunker in front of a water hazard is verboten.  But who says so?

I am trying to convince our green committee and club to remove a poorly placed bunker.  I have made every effort to find written substantiation for the idea that "double hazards" are a bad idea.  Anyone know of any references to support this notion?  Surely, some expert has included a discussion of this problem in their writings?  Please help me in this noble quest!

Bart

[Pete_Pittock]

Bart,
Can you describe the hole and the bunker and why you think it was placed there and why you think it should be decommissioned (other than a double hazard.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart,
Can you describe the hole and the bunker and why you think it was placed there and why you think it should be decommissioned (other than a double hazard.

Pete:

The bunker is placed directly in front of a natural mountain stream that cuts diagonally across the fairway in the landing zone.  Apparently it was placed there to "save" tee shots from rolling into the creek.  It is directly in line with (and in fact would be) the best angle to approach the green.

The bunker is superflous...it detracts from the natural beauty of the hole.  Numerous experts, including our own Ed Oden, have told me it is the worst feature on our course.

I think there is no doubt that the hole would be improved with removal of the bunker...but convincing some of the club members is proving more difficult.  I would be pleased to have literature documentation that supports its removal.

Bart

[Garland Bayley]

Just in the last couple of days Doak said, that's who.

[Bart Bradley]

Just in the last couple of days Doak said, that's who.

Garland:

Where?  How?

I re-read "anatomy of a golf course" last night and could find no reference.

Bart

[Mark_Fine]

The problem with double hazards is that they are misunderstood.  Not all double hazards are "wrong".  It all depends on the hazard and the hazard "intent".  Back to back fairway bunkers are essentially "double hazards".  We see them all the time and few complain about this particular "double hazard".  The small pot bunker in front of the island green on #17 at The TPC at Sawgrass is a "double hazard" yet most love that bunker if they end up in it because it saved them from a worse fate.  Is it a "wrong" feature?  I don't think so and the reason I like it is because of it's intent.  Hope this helps.

[Mike McGuire]

We are  trying to add a bunker and getting resistance from members.

You are trying to remove one and getting resistance from members.

Members dont like change.

After you do it they will like it.

[Bill Brightly]

Bart,
Can you describe the hole and the bunker and why you think it was placed there and why you think it should be decommissioned (other than a double hazard.

Pete:

The bunker is placed directly in front of a natural mountain stream that cuts diagonally across the fairway in the landing zone.  Apparently it was placed there to "save" tee shots from rolling into the creek.  It is directly in line with (and in fact would be) the best angle to approach the green.

The bunker is superflous...it detracts from the natural beauty of the hole.  Numerous experts, including our own Ed Oden, have told me it is the worst feature on our course.

I think there is no doubt that the hole would be improved with removal of the bunker...but convincing some of the club members is proving more difficult.  I would be pleased to have literature documentation that supports its removal.

Bart

I would LOVE to see a few pictures of the hole. You might get some archies to comment if you posted some pics....,

[Tim Gavrich]

Interesting.  Whenever I think "double hazard," I think of a bunker behind a tree.  Because it's tough enough hitting out of a bunker, but having also to avoid the physical vertical hazard is seen by many as "piling on."  I never thought about bunkers next to water; I have always considered the bunkers to be "saving" hazards.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
It also has to do with perception.  A bunker in front of a tree is a double hazard but how about a tree in front of a bunker.  Is it a "saving hazard" because the tree might knock down your shot and keep it out of the bunker?  Generally the problems that arise from double hazards is when the intent of one of the hazards has been changed for the worse by the other one, e.g. a tree that has grown up in front of a bunker which mitigates the intent of the bunker hazard and/or blocks a line of play intended by the architect.
Mark

[Phil_the_Author]

Bart,

What is that big, long sandy thing that runs parallel to the 18th fairway at pebble Beach between the fairway and the Pacific Ocean?

[Ed Oden]

Numerous experts, including our own Ed Oden, have told me it is the worst feature on our course.

Bart, are you delusional?  If I am an "expert", then I fear for the future of your club.  When it comes to merit, my opinions fall somewhere between those of Mike Tyson and that octopus that was picking World Cup games.  

Am I authorized to post a picture of the hole in question?

[Mark_Fine]

Good one Philip    I worked at a club once where I wanted to add a natural looking sand bar bunker next to a pond on one of the holes.  One of the members told me that was stupid and no such feature existed on classic golf courses. It was a double hazard.  I showed him a photo of #14 at Pine Valley and he quickly went quiet    

[Bart Bradley]

I realize that there are exceptions to every "rule".  #12 at Augusta has a fine double hazard as well.

I don't really want to discuss our specific club business on this site.  I was looking for sources for a general discussion of the topic of bunkers in front of water hazards. 

Ed:  I hope for your sake you are closer to the octopus than Mike Tyson!

Bart

[Ed Oden]

Ed:  I hope for your sake you are closer to the octopus than Mike Tyson!

In the words of Iron Mike, "I don't know man, I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."

[Andy Gray]

Bart,

Was the hole orginally designed with the bunker in place, or was it added later?

If it was added later I would try to prove to the members that the bunker is not part of the original design intent of the architect. If it was originally designed in place, then perhaps try to find examples of classic courses, or great holes, where a natural creek was used by the architect to challenge the best approach angle, and explain why the hole is better for it.

However I do not think there is a rule about this issue, as there are both good and bad examples to support either side of the argument.

Andy

[Patrick_Mucci]

Okay, conventional wisdom on this site clearly states that placing a bunker in front of a water hazard is verboten.  But who says so?
Not me.

Often it's done as a safety net, to prevent a ball from rolling into the water hazard.

I am trying to convince our green committee and club to remove a poorly placed bunker. 
I have made every effort to find written substantiation for the idea that "double hazards" are a bad idea. 
Anyone know of any references to support this notion? 
Surely, some expert has included a discussion of this problem in their writings? 
Please help me in this noble quest!


Bart,

If you course has been around for some time, I'd go to historicaerials.com to see when the bunker was installed.

If it's subsequent to opening day, that's a good start with your argument.

If it's subsequent to opening day, the Green Committee and/or Board minutes might reveal more information as to why it was introduced.

The next step I'd take is to look at other courses the architect crafted (aerials) to see if he introduced a double hazard anywhere else.
IF not, that too is more ammo for your quest.


Bart

[Garland Bayley]

Just in the last couple of days Doak said, that's who.

Garland:

Where?  How?

I re-read "anatomy of a golf course" last night and could find no reference.

Bart

On a thread on this website in the last couple of days.

[Garland Bayley]

Here it is.

(Btw, i've always hated the long bunker that runs along the seawall on 18 at Pebble.  Let a ball that far left get wet...)

John:

I've never understood the fixation some people have about a "double penalty".  But, I suspect the bunker on the 18th at Pebble Beach is there because their only options were a bunker, or dead grass (due to all the salt spray that portion of the ground receives).

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

I think my reference was to that bunker on the 18th at Pebble Beach, and just that there was a good reason for it ... that turf in that area would probably die because of salt spray.

In general, though, I do NOT believe that all "double hazards" are bad.  I'll agree with Mark Fine on that one.  I think that on occasion it's okay to have to hit a bunker shot under a tree, say ... in fact, I had a shot like that somewhere in the last month, I believe at Crystal Downs.  There is no rule that says you HAVE to be able to hit it toward the flag ... and if you're playing to the side you will likely eliminate the "double hazard".

"Double hazard" is just one of those rules of thumb that gets misused into a Law of Golf Architecture by guys who don't want to argue the individual case on the merits.


Bart:

I'd bet Jack Nicklaus' book has something about double hazards being bad.  I don't have his book, but at Sebonack he didn't want us to leave a flash of sand up on the right of #16 fairway because you might have to play out of it and under a tree.  I said I would rather play the shot out of a clean sandy lie than out of scrubby rough, because the trees were still going to be in the way; but he said "double hazard" and two or three of the guys we were walking with agreed as if that were the end of discussion.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

Methinks you presume too much about Jack's book.

[JMEvensky]

 I said I would rather play the shot out of a clean sandy lie than out of scrubby rough, because the trees were still going to be in the way; but he said "double hazard" and two or three of the guys we were walking with agreed as if that were the end of discussion.

I really want to ask if the 2 or 3 guys were your employees or his,but I know I shouldn't.

[Tom_Doak]

 I said I would rather play the shot out of a clean sandy lie than out of scrubby rough, because the trees were still going to be in the way; but he said "double hazard" and two or three of the guys we were walking with agreed as if that were the end of discussion.

I really want to ask if the 2 or 3 guys were your employees or his,but I know I shouldn't.

One of the guys who was on Jack's side was Mr. Pascucci, so I didn't belabour the point.

[Sean_A]

The use of Double Hazards is dependent on the situation, but in general they should be avoided.  The most common use and the none I can mor readily accept are double bunkers if they aren't overdone. 

1. Most guys are challenged enough just from being in a bunker - they need trees blocking the recovery as well.  I hate this!

2. Why would you want to stop a ball rolling into a natural hazard by placing an unnatural hazard?  Use the natural hazard as well as can be used- don't eliminate its effectiveness.  I hate this even more than #1. 

3. Usually sand next to water looks really bad unless its naturally occuring.  Though I recall a hole at Whistling Straits that looked rather good - a beach like effect, but I don't know if the sand was a hazard. 

4. I can see the using sand to save a shot from OOB once in a while on an extreme site, but then I have to wonder if a course should have been built there if using hazards as a saving feature is thought necessary. 

Ciao

 

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Houses for example, have a way of "evolving" around golf courses (especially older ones) and sometimes a saving bunker is the right thing to do rather than have an errant shot go out of bounds into someone's yard or onto a road that is now behind or along side a greensite.  Again, the way I evaluate a double hazard is by design intent.  Double hazards do have a place in the game. 

By the way, you must have played Cypress Point.  There are "double hazards" all over that golf course.
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()