[Mike Wagner]

Specifically, bunkers on long par 5s that are reachable off the tee.  The ARTIFICIAL ones with high lips that require, say a 8, 9, or wedge just to get out of.  Moreover, the ones that aren't that far off the intended line of play.  I'm not looking for a gift here - what I'm asking is what is the architectural merit of a bunker on a 600 yard hole that requires the player to advance it 80 yards....from 3-400 yards away?

There are a lot of issues associated with these bunkers, but the biggest reason I bring this up is for the average golfer and pace of play.  I'm not saying you deserve a shot at the green, but isn't being in a fairway bunker tough enough for the average golfer? 

I'm also not saying you should let a guy get a 3 wood on the ball, but these excessively high lipped, manufactured bunkers that kill someone for being slightly off line on very long holes doesn't make sense to me.

There's a particular architect that seems to do this quite a bit....flawed or not?

[Kyle Harris]

Neither.

Depends on the intent of the hole, shot test and question posed by the hole. Clearly these are areas to be avoided. Hugh Wilson wrote his somewhat famous statement on the intent of the bunkers for Merion which were supposed to pose the question of temptation and uncertainty to the golfer. So for those bunkers, inhibiting a bold recovery would be antithetical to their purpose.

[Bill Brightly]

Really Mike? I think it is great feature, especially if you have been provided with a safe way to reach the green in 3 shots. 600 yards is extreme, by the way. But on rwachable par 5's where taking on the bunker allows you to reach the green in two, I think having to wedge out is the perfect price for failure.

[Mike Wagner]

Bill,

I'm talking about the impossible to reach in 2 par 5. 

Let's just say it's 6 bills...250 in the bunker....80 yards out of the bunker...270 left.

[Alex Miller]

Even on an "unreachable"  600 yarder, I think it'd be just fine to have one of those bunkers, as long as it's only in play for the longest of hitters off the tee, say 280-300 yards out.

Mike, Do you have any specific examples which we may draw from?

[Tom_Doak]

I've built bunkers like that at least a couple of times on long par-5's.  What's any more wrong with it, than building a nasty fairway bunker on a par-4 which prevents you from reaching the green?

I fell in love with the idea when I was at the Open at Royal Troon in 1982.  Bobby Clampett led that Open by 7 shots after 41 holes, until he drove it into a fairway pot bunker on the long sixth hole in the third round.  Instead of taking his medicine, he caught the lip of the bunker and went into a second ... then caught the lip of that one and still had 270 yards left ... hooked his fourth into a bad spot, hit his fifth short of the green into another bunker, and made himself an 8.  I think he'd been 13 under par up to then, and he wound up level par for 72 holes!

[Bill Brightly]

Even on an "unreachable"  600 yarder, I think it'd be just fine to have one of those bunkers, as long as it's only in play for the longest of hitters off the tee, say 280-300 yards out.

Mike, Do you have any specific examples which we may draw from?

Alex is right, we need to see the rest of the hole. There really are very few 600 yard par 5's in my experience, but if the hole is 600 then such a bunker needs to be 260-280 off the tee, not 240. And there needs to be plenty of room away from this bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Specifically, bunkers on long par 5s that are reachable off the tee.  The ARTIFICIAL ones with high lips that require, say a 8, 9, or wedge just to get out of.  Moreover, the ones that aren't that far off the intended line of play.  I'm not looking for a gift here - what I'm asking is what is the architectural merit of a bunker on a 600 yard hole that requires the player to advance it 80 yards....from 3-400 yards away?

I like them.

They're intended, amongst other things, to break the spirit of the weak minded golfer.

I also like them because they place a premium on accuracy off the tee, with the golfer knowing that an errant tee shot makes the hole exponentially more difficult.

Pine Tree has them on the left side of the DZ on their 16th hole, a 666/620/600 par 5.



There are a lot of issues associated with these bunkers, but the biggest reason I bring this up is for the average golfer and pace of play.  I'm not saying you deserve a shot at the green, but isn't being in a fairway bunker tough enough for the average golfer? 

What's the average golfer doing playing from tees that present a 600+ yard par 5 ?
He doesn't belong there.  If he plays those tees, it's doubtful that the average golfer can reach those bunkers.
And, if he can, that's the price for being a "macho man"

I'm also not saying you should let a guy get a 3 wood on the ball, but these excessively high lipped, manufactured bunkers that kill someone for being slightly off line on very long holes doesn't make sense to me.

Part of it is the luck of the draw.
If you hit it in the bunker, closer to the green, you have a more difficult shot.
If you hit it in the bunker, closer to the tee, you have an easier shot.

But, where in golf should one feel entitled to unobstructed recovery ?

Do you complain if instead of a bunker it was a water hazard or OB ?

There's a particular architect that seems to do this quite a bit....flawed or not?

I like it.

Who's the architect ?

[Wade Whitehead]

If a player hits into a fairway bunker, is he entitled to an opportunity to reach the green in regulation?

That seems to be Mike's question: Not that the player is entitled to reach the green but that he is entitled to the opportunity.

WW

[John Kavanaugh]

I've seen Fazio use this feature.  Love it.  Few things feel better than a bad drive, 8 iron, 4 iron, two putt par.

[Mike Wagner]

I think there are different ways to read this.  I'm saying specifically on long par 5s...I have one in mind, and it's just so out of place to me.  Whisper Rock Upper #9 - left side complex. 

I'll take it another step - it's also when there is so much trouble around the green, that the next 270 shot requires a forced lay up due to the typical "non-option" modern design.  I don't mind trouble, and I don't mind "tough," but the combination in this instance I think is realatively "boring" architecture.

Pat, I get it, but c'mon..."entitled" - I never said anything of the sort - I never feel entitled to anything -  I'll take my lumps - I'm not the whiny type....I just think it's boring architecturally on the most demanding of holes.  If it was a hazard or OB, I wouldn't have written anything

Another side note is that I find it especially mind numbing when they're used too often.  I'd rather see more interesting options and green complexes to mess with my silly little mind...

JK, nice 4 iron from 270

[DMoriarty]

I don't get this criticism at all.  For the average player the bunker you describe would likely be a second shot hazard, and any bunker will make substantially advancing the ball difficult.    For the better player, what is he doing hitting in the bunker?   Lay up short of it or hit over it.

A difficult bunker makes much more sense to me than an easy bunker.  And easy bunker might as well not be there for the better player as there is little or no consequence for hitting it.   What is the point of a bunker if those that can reach it have little reason to even avoid it? 

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

I'll play the 530 yd tee, thank you very much.

[Sean Leary]

Mike, 

Would 3 and 11 at my home course fit in your definition? They aren't 600 yds but are not reachable by humans.

[Greg Chambers]

If the bunker that's impossible to get out of is 250 off the tee and in the line of play, then I'm teeing off with my 3 wood, 240, then advancing the ball again with my 3 wood, hopefully, another 240...which leaves me with a perfect PW yardage...so what's the big deal?

[Steve Lang]

   So someone is forcing you to play there?  and more than one "stroke hazards" per hole are not allowed?

silly premise if you ask me.

[Mike Wagner]

Sean,

#3 could be a perfect example.  Let's just say there was a bunker deeper than you are tall just in the left rough about 230 off the tee.  You're forced out with an 80 yard shot, then left with 250 into that green.

Yes, same thing on 11 since that green is so brutal....and throw in the back left pin for good measure

[Mike Wagner]

Steve,

Nope, no one forced me to hit it there.  I'm just saying it would be much more interesting if the bunker was tough and allowed for something other than a sand wedge...it's just boring to me.  I see more merit in something that allows a player to get within 200-250 to make them think about what to do next. 

[Mike Wagner]

One more thing I just thought of....part of this could be the artificial "building up" of the lip vs. digging down...doesn't look right to me.....hmm...maybe that's really my issue..

[Alex Miller]

Steve,

Nope, no one forced me to hit it there.  I'm just saying it would be much more interesting if the bunker was tough and allowed for something other than a sand wedge...it's just boring to me.  I see more merit in something that allows a player to get within 200-250 to make them think about what to do next. 

Ok, so let's give you that it's boring to you when you're in it, which is what, 10% of the time? (I hope not )

For the 90% of the time you're not in it, it's not a factor for the rest of the hole. Fine.

BUT, for that tee shot, that bunker is likely already in your head because you know it's a trap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0)

That means that bunker is affecting this hole in what I think is a positive way by imposing strategy and mental warfare on the golfer from the tee. "Don't catch it off the toe" you may think, and inevitably you'll now hit a weak fade and the hole becomes that much harder. Just because there's less fun/strategy when in the bunker doesn't mean that the bunker doesn't add fun/strategy to the hole overall.

[Tim Gavrich]

I personally don't object to the idea of such a hazard, as long as hitting into it is pretty easy to avoid.  If it's a hole where the player is somehow absolutely forced to challenge the bunker, then it might be a bit hokey.  Otherwise, I'm cool with it.  In fact, I prefer it to a bunker that is so shallow that the player can hit a pretty long club out of it, rendering it not much of a hazard.

[Mark Pearce]

Don't hit it in there.  Then you can get on in 3.  Simple.

[Bill Brightly]

Mike,

Would you object if instead of a high-lipped bunker it was a flat pond?

Seriously, how much room do you have to the right of the bunker? If it's 30 yards or more of fairway, you won't get much sympathy here. However, if there is creek winding down the other side, for example, then this hole might be over the top.

[Sean_A]

Mike

It sounds as if, like me (but then I am not usually keen on any true three shot hole), you are not enamoured with the general concept of a 600 yard par 5 for Joe Sixpack.  If you don't mind the yardage I am not sure why you wouldn't, as on other holes, appreciate the other challenges presented.  So long as you can comfortably avoid the hazards it doesn't strike me as a great concern. 

Ciao

[Ross Tuddenham]

Mike

From reading your comments it seems it is the rest of the hole you have and issue with and not the bunker.  After all you could duff it only 20 yards while hitting from the middle of the fairway and still face the impenetrable green complex.  There could be many ways other than a deep bunker that prevent a shot at a long par 5 in three.  Why focus on this type of bunker?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()