[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Hendron,

Remember today, in addition to the Sand Wedge we have the LOB wedge.

There's no doubt that those old bunkers, without a sandwedge, were a more formidable challenge, but, perhaps that placed a greater emphasis on avoiding them.

As I reflect on it, almost inherently, medal play is probably one of the biggest culprits, in the element of "fairness"

A great score ruined by someone's inability to extract themselve from a deep or steep bunker.
In match play, loss of hole, in medal play, a score ruined.

I think medal play, more than any other factor, is responsible for the quest for fairness, and the softening of some of the great, unique and challenging features in golf.

[David_Tepper]

"Remember today, in addition to the Sand Wedge we have the LOB wedge"

Pat M. -

Every time you bring up how "easy" bunkers have become, I always find your fixation on the lob wedge curious.

In point of fact, the lob wedge (which conventionally has 60 degrees of loft and little or no "bounce" on the sole) was designed for use in playing off the grass and not out of the sand. The fact that lob wedges have little or no bounce on their sole makes their use in bunker play problematic for all but the most highly skilled players.

In one of his "Little Red Books," Harvery Penick counseled the average player against carrying/using a lob wedge.

DT 

 

[jeffwarne]

"Remember today, in addition to the Sand Wedge we have the LOB wedge"

Pat M. -

Every time you bring up how "easy" bunkers have become, I always find your fixation on the lob wedge curious.

In point of fact, the lob wedge (which conventionally has 60 degrees of loft and little or no "bounce" on the sole) was designed for use in playing off the grass and not out of the sand. The fact that lob wedges have little or no bounce on their sole makes their use in bunker play problematic for all but the most highly skilled players.

In one of his "Little Red Books," Harvery Penick counseled the average player against carrying/using a lob wedge.

DT 

 

David,
I'm with Harvey on this one....in fact, I tell my students the L stands for lost shot, but a very deep bunker, such as the new, deep, flat bottomed bunkers at Southampton, can be made easier with a lob wedge when dead against the lip.
They're particularly useful in firm sand or downhill lies.
I'd say in almost all cases they're not required though as the technique for hitting out of a bunker launches the ball higher than most realise.

An old fashioned niblick with minimal bounce can be opened to a pretty extreme loft as well, and the act of opening it creates a pretty useable bounce angle

[Mike_Clayton]

David,

Surely the relevance of bounce is determined by the type and depth of the sand?
Lob wedges on the sandbelt where many bunkers are very firm are useful. Having said that, I threw mine out 3 months ago - after having one since 1984 - and my bunker play has improved because the sand wedge forces you to be more creative in getting the ball up - and that has lead to a much improved technique.
And, after a little while 56 degrees starts to look like 60 because you get used to opening it up, putting it forward in the stance and using the back of the sole correctly.

I hate to see 13 year old kids using them - it's a joke but then again they have probably never heard of Seve and the reason he was so good out of sand. Get those 3 irons out!!

[Sean_A]

I don't carry a lob wedge.  I figure there are so few opportunities where I have to play such a risky shot and have the lie to pull it off that it isn't worth its weight in the bag.  I cringe at seeing this club in the bags of players of my ability and worse because in the long run it will cost more shots than save.  

What I want to know is if bunkers are so easy why are the best players in the world considered excellent at bunker play when they get up and down only 60% of the time?  It doesn't sound easy to me.  I guess I am in the Pietro camp; golf is hard and I can't find any evidence to show that it should be made harder - regardless of how hard the game MUST have been 90 years ago.  I shudder to think of the carnage Flynn and Tillinghast wrought on golfers.      

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

A great score ruined by someone's inability to extract themselve from a deep or steep bunker.
In match play, loss of hole, in medal play, a score ruined.

I think medal play, more than any other factor, is responsible for the quest for fairness, and the softening of some of the great, unique and challenging features in golf.

Patrick,  good point.  I've never thought of this but were some of the more penal bunkers designed to make the weak/foolhardy golfer declare "uncle"  while giving him a immediate opportunity for redemption on the next tee? Or more likely, to be reasonably challenged only by the player with superior recovery skills (thus making recovery a more integral part of the game)?

For some reason I like the idea of the hole (but not the golf course) skunking/shutting out the golfer.

Mike

[jeffwarne]

David,

Surely the relevance of bounce is determined by the type and depth of the sand?
Lob wedges on the sandbelt where many bunkers are very firm are useful. Having said that, I threw mine out 3 months ago - after having one since 1984 - and my bunker play has improved because the sand wedge forces you to be more creative in getting the ball up - and that has lead to a much improved technique.
And, after a little while 56 degrees starts to look like 60 because you get used to opening it up, putting it forward in the stance and using the back of the sole correctly.

I hate to see 13 year old kids using them - it's a joke but then again they have probably never heard of Seve and the reason he was so good out of sand. Get those 3 irons out!!

Mike,
1984?
When did Kite start using one?
You were a pioneer.
Was that an eye 2?
I had the original eye 2's with V grooves (which produced wicked fliers due the hard cast metal-hence the shift to box grooves by Karsten)

I didn't play a l wege until the early 90's and only spparingly then.
My rule is only use it when a SW won't work (which is very rare)

[David_Tepper]

Jeff W. & Mike C. -

I cannot imagine there is anything I can tell you about playing golf you don't already know.

I agree totally that, the firmer the sand in a bunker, the less bounce in needed on a sand wedge. Based on what I have seen on TV in the past month or so, the bunkers on courses in Australia (at least those in the Melbourne area), seem to have very firm sand.

I have a question for you guys - given that most links course in GB&I have very firm fairways (which calls for little bounce), but very soft sand in their bunkers (which calls for a lot of bounce), what sort of sand wedge do you recommend for playing those courses?

Thanks!

DT    

[jeffwarne]

Jeff W. & Mike C. -

I cannot imagine there is anything I can tell you about playing golf you don't already know.

I agree totally that, the firmer the sand in a bunker, the less bounce in needed on a sand wedge. Based on what I have seen on TV in the past month or so, the bunkers on courses in Australia (at least those in the Melbourne area), seem to have very firm sand.

I have a question for you guys - given that most links course in GB&I have very firm fairways (which calls for little bounce), but very soft sand in their bunkers (which calls for a lot of bounce), what sort of sand wedge do you recommend for playing those courses?

Thanks!

DT    

David,
 You can never go wrong with a lot of bounce.
Most SW's have too little, setting up the chunk.
Bounce is your friend even on the fairway.
I sell almost exclusively 14 degree 56 wedges, and I'd sell Sandy andys if they still made them.

Only a highly skilled player with a nondigging action through the ball needs a wedge with less than 10-12 degrees ofbounce, especially in their lob wedge.
High loft, low bounce  = chunk.

On super firm fairways, sure you may have to negate a little bounce by moving the ball back slightly ,and perhaps using an L wedge to get the required loft (assuming you're using an L wdge with enough bounce)

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

I think for average player, being in a bunker is less desirable than being in rough grass (unless it's hay), but I do agree that there's too much dumbing down of bunkers in the name of fairness.  Bunkers were generally more difficult in the past.  Most courses should have some really tough traps; where you're really screwed.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't carry a lob wedge.  I figure there are so few opportunities where I have to play such a risky shot and have the lie to pull it off that it isn't worth its weight in the bag.  I cringe at seeing this club in the bags of players of my ability and worse because in the long run it will cost more shots than save.  

What I want to know is if bunkers are so easy why are the best players in the world considered excellent at bunker play when they get up and down only 60% of the time?  It doesn't sound easy to me.  I guess I am in the Pietro camp; golf is hard and I can't find any evidence to show that it should be made harder - regardless of how hard the game MUST have been 90 years ago.  I shudder to think of the carnage Flynn and Tillinghast wrought on golfers.      

Ciao

Sean, whilst I am certainly a fan of keeping bunkers to a minimum, I don't think golf is hard now because of bunkers. I think golf is hard because people aren't required to think what shot they are going to attempt to execute. I genuinely think that there's a reasonable argument that by making bunkers harder and more chaotic in their placement on the line of charm, then golf in many ways becomes easier (and certainly more fun) as people again have to learn how to plot their way round rather than just taking out the longest club posssible.... Maybe that's wishful thinking though...

I agree with Patrick about medal play however...

[Sean_A]

I don't carry a lob wedge.  I figure there are so few opportunities where I have to play such a risky shot and have the lie to pull it off that it isn't worth its weight in the bag.  I cringe at seeing this club in the bags of players of my ability and worse because in the long run it will cost more shots than save.  

What I want to know is if bunkers are so easy why are the best players in the world considered excellent at bunker play when they get up and down only 60% of the time?  It doesn't sound easy to me.  I guess I am in the Pietro camp; golf is hard and I can't find any evidence to show that it should be made harder - regardless of how hard the game MUST have been 90 years ago.  I shudder to think of the carnage Flynn and Tillinghast wrought on golfers.      

Ciao

Sean, whilst I am certainly a fan of keeping bunkers to a minimum, I don't think golf is hard now because of bunkers. I think golf is hard because people aren't required to think what shot they are going to attempt to execute. I genuinely think that there's a reasonable argument that by making bunkers harder and more chaotic in their placement on the line of charm, then golf in many ways becomes easier (and certainly more fun) as people again have to learn how to plot their way round rather than just taking out the longest club posssible.... Maybe that's wishful thinking though...

I agree with Patrick about medal play however...

Ally

I agree with you.  I would like nothing more than to see all bunkers deep and difficult to recover from, BUT sparingly used.  If bunkers are to be used less, this means they must be placed with more thought - breaking up the line of instinct so the golfer must therefore either be brave or find the line of charm.  This style of course is necessarily easier then the typical championship style of bunker left and right.  A style which has spread like a virus to untold numbers of non-championship courses.  Along the way, the narrowed fairways too were implemented far more than in the past.  These changes and the introduction of handfuls of water holes have made golf harder than it need be for almost everyone playing the game.

Ciao 

[Mike_Clayton]

Jeff,

I think Kite was using one in 1981 when he had that amazing season - maybe 20 plus top 10s in a year.The one I was using was a Ram Tom Watson wedge.
It looked good then but no where near as good as the ones Cleveland were making by the early-mid nineties.Everything else since has been a copy of that club as far as i can see.
I guess the answer to the firm fairway, soft sand question is just to experiment until you find something that works. Peter Fowler, who is one of the best short game players I have seen (he led the Euro Senior Tour money list last year) had a club specifically ground with almost no bounce for the sandbelt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Remember today, in addition to the Sand Wedge we have the LOB wedge"

Pat M. -

Every time you bring up how "easy" bunkers have become, I always find your fixation on the lob wedge curious.

It's been great for me, off the grass, in the rough and especially in bunkers.
Remember, there are a lot of golfers who would rather be in a greenside bunker than in heavy greenside rough, and I'm probably one of them.

In point of fact, the lob wedge (which conventionally has 60 degrees of loft and little or no "bounce" on the sole) was designed for use in playing off the grass and not out of the sand. The fact that lob wedges have little or no bounce on their sole makes their use in bunker play problematic for all but the most highly skilled players.

I'm not so sure that the early/original lob wedges were designed solely for grass.
Early Lob wedges had plenty of bounce on their sole.
Ping probably created one of the earliest and better lob wedges.
Subsequent Ping Lob wedges had reduced bounce vis a vis beveled soles.
The Ping Eye 2 was a spectacular lob wedge with sufficient bounce.
I still use mine, 27 years later.

In one of his "Little Red Books," Harvery Penick counseled the average player against carrying/using a lob wedge.

WHY ?

The lob wedge allows you to get the ball airborne at a quicker, steeper angle, perfect for play when your ball is close to the front of a bunker.[color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Have you ever seen that marvelous old aerial of Hollywood.

I wish someone would post it.

The systemic bunkering is the best I've ever seen.

Sadly, many, if not most have been filled in due to "fairness"

[JMEvensky]

I think medal play, more than any other factor, is responsible for the quest for fairness, and the softening of some of the great, unique and challenging features in golf.

I agree with your original premise (that golfers have become spoiled wimps),but I disagree with your opinion that stroke play is the biggest factor.

I think the fairness issue,making golf courses easier,is more of a generational thing.At least in my small sampling,I see club decisions being influenced by people who started playing golf for social or business reasons.For them,golf isn't now,nor has it ever been,a competitive sport.

Anything that makes the game of golf less skillful,they're in favor of.

Golf is a different game to them than it is to you or me.

[Kirk Gill]

"In cutting your bunkers do not be afraid to make them large and varied in shape. Most inland greens are spoiled by the fact that the hazards are not big enough to catch all the missed balls which go in their direction. Do not forget, moreover, that in many cases the hazard should stretch from the edge of the teeing ground to a distance of a hundred yards or more, so that a missed drive must positively bring its punishment. A bunker is very little good unless it is thirty feet wide, or is guarded by a high face. Whenever you see a ball jump a bunker which lies across the line of fire, you may take note of it, and if the same accident repeats itself often, you should set to work at once and widen your bunker."
               H.J. Whigham, "How to Play Golf"  1897

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()