Should the rear of Greens still be protected by Bunkers?

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony

The point I am trying to make is that should we have bunkers in that location. I fear the answer is no perhaps a further 20 M back, but of course we have to consider the terrain. But rear bunkers generally are an aid to the wayward shot by not being deep yet will stop the ball. I am saying should we not at times let the ball go – a free markets, if you will and see where it stops rather than control it via a bunker.

Melvyn

I have a lot of problem condemning, or praising, things on a general basis. Especially when in most cases the specifics–and the ability to evaluate those specifics–are available.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

You lost me there, I though we were talking golf.  With all that has been modernised the Greens outer defensives seem not to have kept up with technology.

Anyway who is evaluating what? As for the question I thought it was just asking for options/opinions.

Melvyn

[Phil_the_Author]

Melvyn,

How did I misunderstand you when I quoted you directly and then repeated exactly what you wrote in my question? You asked about the need for rear greenside bunkers because, and these are your exact words, "I ask because many of the front Green defensives are now becoming redundant due to the ability to land on the Green, so should we not beef up the rear to accommodate an overshoot..."

So you are stating that due to an ability to land the ball on the green, thus clearly implying that the ground game involving running balls up and onto the green is no longer there for most players. My question about what YOU wrote next then is quite evident that I understood you. Again, here is what I asked:

"Melvyn, placing "stone walls" 20m in front of greens to "stop balls and test the resolve of the golfer? Isn't your premise based upon fronting bunkers becoming irrelevant because of the "modern aerial game?""

The reason for asking that question is because you stated, "Many options exist but I favour continuing the fairway/rough combination with either or/and bunkers, stone walls or blind dells placed some 20 M approx. out from the Green to hopefully finally stop the ball and test the resolve of the golfer with his recovery shot."

I used the pohrase "20m in front of greens" where you used the phrase "some 20m approx. from the green..." Sorry Melvyn, I apologize for your misunderstanding, but I am simply stating the same thing that you are, that you advocate building stone walls approx. 20m out from the green" and that you advocate this as a means to "finally stop the ball" and yet your opening question is based upon challenging players who fly the ball onto the green. Something doesn't make sense here and I believe it is what you wrote.

Are you actually trying to state that the "stone walls" you advocate building are for the BACK SIDE of the green? On this side of the pond, where the true game of golf is enjoyed the phrase "out from the green" would most likely be understood, in my opinion of course, as referring to the FRONT SIDE of the green and that is how I took it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Philip

Please take it anyway common sense dictates.

Melvyn 

[Doug Siebert]

Doesn't it depend on the slopes around the green?  On my home course there are very strong back to front slopes on most greens, and almost all of those greens have an extremely steep slope falling away behind the green.  There is almost no conceivable bunker that would penalize you worse.  There are two holes that have back bunkers, and believe me, if I'm heading long I'm rooting 100% for my ball to find the bunker!  Here behind the green is thick rough, so aren't hurt much if you just roll long, it is leaving the green while still airborne where you get killed.  If they wanted to drive people insane, they'd shave that down to fairway height and people would be tearing their hair out on a windy day on every hole with a back pin.

It also depends on the type of back bunker.  If you are likely to get a lot of downhill lies in the bunker, as in the Valley Club example posted by Anthony, its a huge penalty.  As a bonus its nicely proportionate, since if you just dribble into the bunker you'll benefit from a flat or uphill lie, you'll only get that nasty downhill lie if you bounce or fly in.  Likewise, if you have the type of sand that encourages buried lies it would add a significant penalty to someone who flew long, a moderate penalty (fried egg lie) for a ball that one hops in, and a minimal penalty for a ball that just dribbles in.  If they have that fluffy sand that generates buried lies at the Valley Club you could get a downhill AND buried lie, which may mean having to aim back at the fairway since you'd probably be unable to stop the ball anywhere on the green!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Of course we need to take account of the course and the prevailing conditions of the hazards around the Greens. I am talking from my experience of local courses certainly around my neck of the woods. I see too many times the trees looming out the back of the Greens just the other side of the rear bunkers, thus allowing limited if any rear recovery from that wayward shot.

The back of our Greens have their supply of bunkers not necessary inter-joined but loosely laced around the back, simply to stop the balls traveling into the woods. It seems that the creativity of designer melted away and all have accepted the woods and a lost ball as the penalty for a rather poor shot. I fear that seems unfairly harsh and pointless as the game is not about lost balls but actually playing every shot even those to get one back into the game. A lost ball on or near a Green is IMHO a pointless design feature which encourages slow play and disruption to every ones game.

Hence my preference of seeing an extension to the fairway running out the rear of the Green before the preverbal shallow bunker. The bunker is a trap not a method to help the golfer stop his ball. I would prefer a stone wall some 20 or so yards to the rear of the Green rather than shallow bunkers. This allows the ball some opportunity to do its own thing before being forced to come to rest. A ditch would be over the top and offer no continuity as would a water feature.  I believe it’s that continuity that  generates some of the enjoyment when play golf.

In other words some courses and there are a few dating back to The (2nd) Golden Age with Colts name one them that abruptly stop at behind the Green - Colts course at Belfairs near Southend springs to mind see photos of the 17 & 18th Greens.
17th Green view A

17th Green View B

18th Green


Do you not feel that the game is somewhat compromised or squeezes by the abrupt way the course suddenly finishes in the trees.

Melvyn 

[Mark Pearce]

Most of the greens at Northumberland GC have some form of hazard at the back of the green.

In four cases (5, 9, 11, 12) the back to front sloping green has a drop off over the back, which means that a long ball leaves a chip back which needs to get up but then lands on a green running away from the shot.  On 3 greens (1, 8, 17) the green has the racecourse immediately behind (and in the cases of 8 and 17, below) the green.  These are definitely holes not to overshoot on. 

2 and 16 have a series of humps (mogul like) behind the green.  3 has a combination of a rough covered bank and a drop off, 4 has a high rough covered bank.  A long ball catching up on that bank leaves a nightmare chip from rough off a steeply downhill lie.  6, 7, 10 and 13 have fairly flat ground behind the green (the 11th and 14th tees in the case of 10 and 13) but with shrubbery for the very long ball on 6 and 7.  14 and 18 have OOB behind the green.

I like hazards behind the green but think a mix is a good way to go.  It seems to me that the downhill slope, short grass and water behind 15 at ANGC is a great hazard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

After due consideration, my answer is a very specific "sometimes."

In a general and philosophical way, I say that because your comments seem to focus on punishing shots, while mine would be on encouraging shots. 

Even if back bunkers do help players, there are times when I like the idea of encouraging a player to go for the Sunday pin when its near the back of the green, and some "save" features do that, whereas a drop off to nowhere would discourage it and make them play to the middle of the green, or a club short, or whatever, to avoid more than a one stroke penalty, esp. in stroke play that most of us in the US play.

If we need to make golf more fun, and a game, rather than some test of our anicent manhood, I think it makes sense.  Isn't it more fun to challenge pins with moderate hazards than play safe because they are too severe?  Not that there isn't room for variety, and having a severe penalty behind the green on a few occaisions is something that should be factored into a shot sometimes, thus my answer "sometimes."

[Richard Hetzel]

I agree with Patrick. #11 Wanango CC.

[Doug Siebert]

Richard,

What is that little white stake I see in the background behind that bunker?  It looks like this hole has a downslope, followed by a flat bunker, followed by a cartpath, followed by OB.  WTF?

This bunker would appear to be mostly a non-factor....there aren't many situations where having it there versus having it filled in with grass of approximately the same length as that on the slope immediately above it makes any difference in terms of where you end up or how difficult your recovery is.  The penalty for going long is certainly disproportionate on this hole, if you fly a couple feet long and hit on that downslope you are probably going OB, if you fly a bit further and land in the bunker you will probably be OK.  If you roll slowly off the back you could hang up in the end of that thick tangle at the top of the hill with a horrible lie (and maybe even a lost ball if you don't know exactly where to look) but if it is rolling a bit faster it goes down the hill for an easy pitch off the light rough on the upslope or in a flat featureless bunker.  This bunker has no reason for existence.

[Melvyn Morrow]

When is a bunker not a bunker - when it looks like this. It is IMHO a total waste of space, time and money, yet I expect someone got paid for this design, while some poor sod has to maintain it.



If you are going to all the expense of creating this hazard why not just flatten the Green. Perhaps we should grade bunkers as we do films shallow bing suitable to kids of 5 upwards, with say Pot Bunkers being an 18.
Sorry but shallow bunkers are not worth the investment to build or maintain IMO.

Melvyn