The Soft Sand at Bay Hill: Good or Bad?

[Phil Benedict]

Balls were routinely plugging at Bay Hill this weekend, including, crucially on the 17th when Marino made double.  Arnie evidently wanted the bunkers to play like hazards.  I am ok with this although when coupled with super firm greens and forced carry approaches, like at the par 3 17th, it was a over-the-top in some situations.

[jeffwarne]

Balls were routinely plugging at Bay Hill this weekend, including, crucially on the 17th when Marino made double.  Arnie evidently wanted the bunkers to play like hazards.  I am ok with this although when coupled with super firm greens and forced carry approaches, like at the par 3 17th, it was a over-the-top in some situations.

I'm guessing Arnie didn't have a whole lot to do with it......

[Dan Herrmann]

Good - it's a friggin' hazard!

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed Dan!  Let it bury and make the shot more difficult!

Mark

[Terry Lavin]

Ridiculous.  Stupid.  Needlessly punitive.  Downright petty setup.

If the idea is to make bunkers harder, maybe next year they can put ponds in the middle of some of them.

[Bill Hyde]

I agree Terry. Our club had sand that plugged constantly on lips which resulted in ridiculously awkward stances and lies that were never meant to be experienced. Lips do not exist for balls to get plugged in, they exist to make the recovery shot more challenging. We replaced our sand, Bay Hill should, too.

[Eric Smith]

Here's a shot from the Barnbougle thread. Should they change out the sand there as well?

[Bill Hyde]

I think there's a big difference between native sand and sand that's imported. So no, I don't. But I do think it should be changed at Bay Hill and I'm glad it was at my club...

[Eric Smith]

Okay, your stance re: native sand and imported sand:

one is okay to have plugged lies in the lip, but the other is not?

[Richard Choi]

If you are not in favor of penalizing a player for hitting into a bunker, than you are not for risk/reward.

There is nothing more ridiculous than tour players routinely aiming for bunkers on tough approaches. I was very happy to see plugged lies over the weekend.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

As far as I know they do not prepare the course at Banbougle with the number one intent to look good for the tour every year.
For that reason, so many plugged bunker shots is ridiculous, I agree they are hazards, but when the proximity of a "hazard" is within 20 or less feet from a perfect shot, the penalty does nit fit the crime.

I am all for amking the game difficult for the tour players, but yesterday in particular you were better off hitting approach shots 50 feet off line than the two shots Marino hit into 15 and 17...those were well struck shots within 10 feet of perfection and did not deserve what was basically a shot penalty.

Even as popular as Arnie is, they will not attend his tournament if they dont get those bunkers sorted out.
The firm greens..great..but not with those bunkers.

[Terry Lavin]

Okay, your stance re: native sand and imported sand:

one is okay to have plugged lies in the lip, but the other is not?

The question here, I think, relates to the proper setup for a tournament.  Bay Hill had a certain kind of playable sand for many years.  In response to low scores, they changed too a type of sand guaranteed to leave a lot of fried eggs and plugged lies.  I think this is stupid and it led to some stupid scores for a petty reason.

The question that you raise about Barnbougle is wholly different.  I'm a member of a club (Dunes Club in Michigan) that is built on sand dunes and the native sand is used.   It's very soft and you wind up with some difficult lies, but that's the way the course was designed and built.  That seems pretty defensible to me.

[Richard Choi]

As far as I know they do not prepare the course at Banbougle with the number one intent to look good for the tour every year.
For that reason, so many plugged bunker shots is ridiculous, I agree they are hazards, but when the proximity of a "hazard" is within 20 or less feet from a perfect shot, the penalty does nit fit the crime.

I am all for amking the game difficult for the tour players, but yesterday in particular you were better off hitting approach shots 50 feet off line than the two shots Marino hit into 15 and 17...those were well struck shots within 10 feet of perfection and did not deserve what was basically a shot penalty.

Even as popular as Arnie is, they will not attend his tournament if they dont get those bunkers sorted out.
The firm greens..great..but not with those bunkers.

I don't understand this thinking at all. Isn't the definition of risk/reward enticing the player to hit a "perfect" shot but if you miss on the wrong side, punishing it fairly severely? What is wrong with hitting 50 feet off line??? That is what risk reward means - either hit the perfect shot and take the consequences if you don't or go on another line where there are much greater elements of safety. Seems to me, that is what great golf courses have.

I am quite perplexed by resistance to risk/reward... I thought that was one of the fundamental beliefs of this website.

[David Lott]

Okay, your stance re: native sand and imported sand:

one is okay to have plugged lies in the lip, but the other is not?

The question here, I think, relates to the proper setup for a tournament.  Bay Hill had a certain kind of playable sand for many years.  In response to low scores, they changed too a type of sand guaranteed to leave a lot of fried eggs and plugged lies.  I think this is stupid and it led to some stupid scores for a petty reason.

The question that you raise about Barnbougle is wholly different.  I'm a member of a club (Dunes Club in Michigan) that is built on sand dunes and the native sand is used.   It's very soft and you wind up with some difficult lies, but that's the way the course was designed and built.  That seems pretty defensible to me.

I believe the "stupid" scores are a result of hitting into sand, rather than the sand itself. Since the longer players were on 18 hitting from 20-40 yards beyond the Gamez plaque, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Not bad at all for tournament golf. A little tough on the average resort guest though.

[Eric Smith]

Did these guys (and their 19 Opens) have to play out of plugged lies in the lips of bunkers back in the day?

I don't know any definitive answer, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they did.

Oh, I'm sure their Nielsen #'s were dog meat, but still...

[JR Potts]

If you are not in favor of penalizing a player for hitting into a bunker, than you are not for risk/reward.

There is nothing more ridiculous than tour players routinely aiming for bunkers on tough approaches. I was very happy to see plugged lies over the weekend.

Where's the risk reward in trying to hit a 4 iron onto a rock-hard green built to barely hold a 6 iron?  Seems that the safe and smart play may be to hit it into the front bunker....only for it to plug an inch into the sand.

I thought the tournament was a laughting-stock....mostly due to the ridiculous bunker maintenance.

And there's a difference between "tough approaches" and "impossible approaches".  With 220 yard Par3s the norm, what are guys like David Toms and other short hitters on tour supposed to do when they can't possibly hold a green with the club required to get it on the green?  It is better if they lay up short of the bunker?  Does that make it less ridiculous than hitting it into a greens-side bunker expecting a quasi-playable lie?

[Phil Benedict]

I think the sand created some 'pick your poison' shots such as the tee shot on 17, where your options were front bunker or long.  In most pro events being in the bunker is better, but not on this hole.  Marino hits it in the bunker and makes double, although he should  have made 4 even after going long with his sand shot, while Laird lands on the green and rollls over but still makes par.  With 20/20 hindsight Marino went for too much given the unusually penal nature of the sand.

[JR Potts]

Call me crazy but I'm not too keen on "pick your poison" holes where success can only be measured after the fate of said shot is determined by the unpredicabiltiy of whether your perfectly stuck ball hits the flagstick on the way to rolling over the green.

[Richard Choi]

Call me crazy but I'm not too keen on "pick your poison" holes where success can only be measured after the fate of said shot is determined by the unpredicabiltiy of whether your perfectly stuck ball hits the flagstick on the way to rolling over the green.

If the ball rolls over the green, it was not perfect. It may be perfect if the green was soft, but based on the condition they had on Sunday, it was not a well struck shot. Many final finisher's made par from that shot, so the punishment for not "not so perfect" shot was reasonably fair.

They could have also hit a fade runner that bounced before the green for a safe par as well.

Hazard playing like a hazard is what it is supposed to do. I didn't see any complaints before about how people routinely put balls in the water for something that was so close to being perfect on many, many holes at Bay Hill. Not sure why some people believe sand hazard should not be a hazard at all...

[JR Potts]

Call me crazy but I'm not too keen on "pick your poison" holes where success can only be measured after the fate of said shot is determined by the unpredicabiltiy of whether your perfectly stuck ball hits the flagstick on the way to rolling over the green.

If the ball rolls over the green, it was not perfect. It may be perfect if the green was soft, but based on the condition they had on Sunday, it was not a well struck shot.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  

Yep, a fade runner....that's what they should have hit....you know, for an easy par.

Sometimes I'm so impressed with the knowledge on this board....other times.....not so much....especially when it comes to what the public wants out of the professional game of golf.

The same guys who decry the role that length has on the game of golf, totally dismiss its role when it's convenient.

I need to go home now and practice my fade-runner.

[Sean Leary]

Do you need a brush tee to hit a fade runner? Seriously, a fade runner? C'mon Rich.....

[Terry Lavin]

Potts,

You have to remember that the chatter here is all about "options".  So the presence of the ashtray sand at Bay Hill gave a professional player the "option" of hitting a perfect (i.e. extremely lucky) shot or drilling it into the face of a greenside bunker which then gave him the "option" of making bogey or worse despite hitting a really good shot into a par 3.  He just "chose" the wrong option!

[JR Potts]

Lavin:

Don't forget as you state that the alternative "option" to smashing the shot into the face of said bunker (absent pulling off the apparently quite easily executed fade-runner) is hitting said shot perfect...and watching it roll over the green into a lie of an unknown quality?

Yep, those are some options on the 17th hole of a professional event.  Kind of reminds me of the "options" that were available during the 2010 US Open on the 17th.  Even though, I must say that the hook-runner is probably the preferred shot on the 17th at Pebble....you know, hit the hook-runner for an easy par.

[Terry Lavin]

"Hook runner"?

Sounds like part of a plot line for Hangover II

[Matthew Sander]

What was Marino's position when he played the 17th hole?

The reason I ask is that he (and Laird for that matter) had every opportunity to hit to the left half of the green where there is ample opening. Wth the way the green was releasing they would have left themselves a straight forward 2 putt...