[Patrick_Mucci]

bunker sand ?

Some sand seems rather easy to recover from,  other sand seems to present more of a problem.

I know many courses that reconstruct and resand their bunkers, but, I've never heard of a club selecting the sand, based on it's difficulty.

Should bunker sand present more of a problem in terms of recovery ?

Should bunkers remain prefered locations, as opposed to greenside rough ?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Pat
Assume you hit a 9 iron approach to a par four.
The wind holds it up.
The ball falls short and plugs in the greenside bunker - nearish the upslope.
Would you accept a semi-plugged lie occasionally?
Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Assume you hit a 9 iron approach to a par four.
The wind holds it up.
The ball falls short and plugs in the greenside bunker - nearish the upslope.
Would you accept a semi-plugged lie occasionally?

Mike, it's an interesting and valid question.

As an answer I'd offer the following.

If it was a greenside water hazard you'd accept the results, so why is there an aversion to accepting the result in the form of a bad lie from an errant shot if it's a bunker ?

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

I assume you are referring to greenside bunkers.

Hitting into a bunker costs the best players in the world, playing on the best groomed bunkers and putting on the smoothest greens, 1/2 a shot on average.

What you do think it costs the average 5-, 10- or 15-handicap golfers?

(Speaking from personal experience, observed and otherwise , I would say hitting into a greenside bunker costs the average 15-handicap at least 1 shot.)

What do you think the appropriate/typical penalty for hitting into a bunker should be?

DT  

[Tommy Williamsen]

You know what I can agree with you.  BUT  Many courses purchase the sand that is the least expensive.  It is generally loose and granular that is difficult to play out of. I hate it.  I tend to use my old Sandy Andy out of it and hit a chunk and run.   I understand what you are saying and can agree in general but some sand is no fun.  Many courses in Western Michigan seem to use Lake Michigan type sand.  If your use to it it is ok, I guess.  I hate it.
So yes I agree in principle but would rather have a high quality firm sand in my bunkers.

[Jason Thurman]

I don't see any actual data that suggests recovery from sand is easier than recovery from elsewhere. If you look at scrambling statistics, you'll see that the top bunker players and top scramblers both get up and down about 65% of the time from their respective lie of specialty. However, if you take a look at the MEDIAN player in sand save percentage, he gets up and down from sand about 50% of the time while the median player in scrambling percentage gets up and down from around the green about 58% of the time. That's a pretty significant advantage for avoiding a bunker.

I know a lot of pros think they'd rather be in sand than grass around the green, but numbers show most of them should be careful what they wish for. Making bunker sand more difficult would surely affect scoring though, and one thing I like about the idea is that it seems like it would make things tougher for the low handicap, strong sand player while not really changing anything for the higher handicap player who stinks from the sand regardless of type.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat:

When Sand Ridge Golf Club opened near Cleveland about fifteen years ago there was an emphasis placed on filling bunkers with sand that was very difficult to play out of. The sand came from the Best Sand Company quarry next to the golf course, a company run by Sand Ridge founder Bill Conway.

I remember being told the USGA was very interested in this sand and was considering encouraging clubs that wanted to host USGA events to use it. The logic was that the USGA wanted to make recovery from bunkers more difficult.

Whether any clubs decided to adopt this approach I don't know, but the sand definitely had a big influence on my club selection and shot played on maybe 4-5 holes. I just became determined not to play less club and risk the fried egg.

Not sure whether it is a good idea for handicap player; might be more interesting for the plus man.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

When Sand Ridge Golf Club opened near Cleveland about fifteen years ago there was an emphasis placed on filling bunkers with sand that was very difficult to play out of. The sand came from the Best Sand Company quarry next to the golf course, a company run by Sand Ridge founder Bill Conway.

I remember being told the USGA was very interested in this sand and was considering encouraging clubs that wanted to host USGA events to use it. The logic was that the USGA wanted to make recovery from bunkers more difficult.

Whether any clubs decided to adopt this approach I don't know,

Definitely not.  Most top-end clubs buy the most expensive sand they can find, to get something that is very firm and easy to play out of and guarantees few fried-egg lies.  The Best Sand Company sells that variety, too, and Jack Nicklaus has been known to ship thousands of tons of it from Ohio to Florida!

[Alex Lagowitz]

Perhaps not in the type of sand, per say, but in the maintenance.

Oakmont used to use rakes with wide forks, that created deeper furrows - a tougher recovery from dicier lies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim, et. al.,

Let me bifurcate the exercise.

I understand the political dilemma presented by making bunkers more difficult for the average to below average golfer at the local level.

What would be wrong with excavating existing bunker sand at a hosting club and replacing it with the more difficult sand for a PGA or USGA tournament, and then when the tournament leaves town, reversing the process ?

[JMEvensky]

Tim, et. al.,

Let me bifurcate the exercise.

I understand the political dilemma presented by making bunkers more difficult for the average to below average golfer at the local level.

What would be wrong with excavating existing bunker sand at a hosting club and replacing it with the more difficult sand for a PGA or USGA tournament, and then when the tournament leaves town, reversing the process ?

Why do you think most PGAT tournaments have bunkers maintained with "difficult" sand?

Curious how you'd make bunkers more difficult for bad players--they can't play out of them now.Do you really think the problem is the sand's particular granular shape?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

I don't recall your suggestion ever being discussed when Sand Ridge opened with very soft sand. The idea was to encourage sites that hosted USGA events to move to it permanently.

Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest that the soft sand was necessarily bad for the handicap player. I just meant it had a big impact on me and how I approached certain shots. My fear was the failure to play over a bunker fronting a green could easily result in a two stroke penalty and the dreaded double bogey I so much wanted to avoid.

Now, with regard to the plus man and elite players playing in USGA events, I would probably support your version of "bifurcation" if clubs weren't willing to permanently adopt hard to play, soft sand. Imagine a pin tucked tight behind a bunker. Today most elite players have no fear (I believe). If they fall short into the bunker they are quite confident of recovery. Maybe they don't make birdie, but neither do they lose a shot to par.

Soft sand just might change the equation and introduce more strategy. Does the player play one more club and leave himself a more difficult birdie putt? Or does he play aggressive trying to get his approach shot close and risk losing a shot or two to par?

[Tom_Doak]

The sustainable answer to this problem is just to use whatever local sand is available, and let the players figure it out.  Not having CONSISTENT sand from one week to the next would be plenty to throw off the Tour pros ... all you need is to plant the seed of doubt in their minds.  But of course, the Tour has gone in the opposite direction.  Their set-up people go to great lengths to have the bunker sand play similar from one week to the next, so that the players DON'T have to adjust to something different every week.

Never forget who really runs the Tour.  It's the players.

I suppose the USGA could take a different tack.  But, removing all the sand from bunkers and replacing it is pretty costly, damages the turf, and takes months to settle into proper form.  Really, if they wanted to mess up the bunkers all they would have to do is take the sand and stir it up a week before the event so that it wasn't settled again.

[Jeb Bearer]

The sustainable answer to this problem is just to use whatever local sand is available, and let the players figure it out.  Not having CONSISTENT sand from one week to the next would be plenty to throw off the Tour pros ... all you need is to plant the seed of doubt in their minds.  But of course, the Tour has gone in the opposite direction.  Their set-up people go to great lengths to have the bunker sand play similar from one week to the next, so that the players DON'T have to adjust to something different every week.

This is one of the things I really don't get about the Tour. They go to seemingly great lengths to toughen up courses and "defend" par, including "doctoring" some really great designs, narrowing the fairways, growing the rough out to obscene heights. And then they go and standardize the quality of sand from region to region, soften green contours, flatten natural bumps that might be "unfair". What do they really want, and why are they taking contradictory steps to get it?

Also, to answer the question, could another solution lie in the maintenance, rather than the type, of sand? Rugged, unmaintained bunkers are certainly tougher to play out of, they're random (ie. more variety day-to-day) they're cheaper (?), and, when done right and fitted in with the rest of the course, they can really look great. If you really wanted to toughen up the bunkers, wouldn't that be one of the quickest and easiest ways to do it?

[Troy Fink]

I like Pat's idea of bifurcation, but I would try to accomplish the tougher side by using alternative raking methods.  Tom touched on the idea about stirring the sand up before the tournament.  I think a more routine system could be used.  The bunker sand I mangage plays firm, but raking it a certain way can make it play softer.  It takes a little more concentrated effort, but for a special event it certainly seems reasonable if that's what the "tournament committee" wanted.

Overall I get compliments on how our bunker sand plays, becasue it's easy to get the ball up and out of the bunker.  I even get other superintendents asking me about how the bunkers are managend becasue their golfers liked it when they played as a guest.  It hurts my ego, because I'd rather take questions about how good the greens were.  Oh well.  Seriously, we have 3 different ways to rake our sand depending on moisture content, so that the bunkers don't play too firm or too soft.  For bunker raking, it's sophisticated  , but really doesn't add to our maintenance costs.

My short story is that changing how you rake the sand can influence its' firmness/softness.  At Kingsmill we had cheap soft sand, but for the PGA Tour we broomed the bunkers, then we lightly watered them to keep them firm.  A different sand and we probably would need to do something different depending on the desired result.

If you want a tool to beef up a course's defense, making the bunkers tougher to play from is something to consider, among others.  I think most golfers are plenty challanged just by being in a bunker, so I wouldn't go out of my way to make them tougher on a regular basis.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim, et. al.,

Let me bifurcate the exercise.

I understand the political dilemma presented by making bunkers more difficult for the average to below average golfer at the local level.

What would be wrong with excavating existing bunker sand at a hosting club and replacing it with the more difficult sand for a PGA or USGA tournament, and then when the tournament leaves town, reversing the process ?

Why do you think most PGAT tournaments have bunkers maintained with "difficult" sand?

I don't, how did you come to that conclusion ?

Curious how you'd make bunkers more difficult for bad players--they can't play out of them now.
Do you really think the problem is the sand's particular granular shape?

Some sand is easier than others

[Adam Clayman]

I know many courses that reconstruct and resand their bunkers, but, I've never heard of a club selecting the sand, based on it's difficulty.

While it wasn't the club, the PGA Tour deselected the sand at Dubs Dread because it was too difficult. Ironic, or what?

Joe Jemsek was so proud of that soft silica that he had shipped in special from Green Lake Wisc.

It never ceases to amaze how a club will pick a sand because of it's color. Even when that color is not close in color to the native sand on prop.

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. -

How tough do you think bunkers should be?

The average sand save ratio on the PGA Tour is roughly 50%. What do you think it should be? 40%? 30%? 20%?

DT

[Rick Baril]

This is one of the things I really don't get about the Tour. They go to seemingly great lengths to toughen up courses and "defend" par, including "doctoring" some really great designs, narrowing the fairways, growing the rough out to obscene heights. And then they go and standardize the quality of sand from region to region, soften green contours, flatten natural bumps that might be "unfair". What do they really want, and why are they taking contradictory steps to get it?

Also, to answer the question, could another solution lie in the maintenance, rather than the type, of sand? Rugged, unmaintained bunkers are certainly tougher to play out of, they're random (ie. more variety day-to-day) they're cheaper (?), and, when done right and fitted in with the rest of the course, they can really look great. If you really wanted to toughen up the bunkers, wouldn't that be one of the quickest and easiest ways to do it?

I was interested in your comment and question (above).  My impression of the Tour is quite different from yours.  I don’t think their intention is to “toughen up courses and defend par…”  My impression is: they are interested in entertainment (creating a highlight reel, if you will).  I think they have a recipe which they believe creates the most drama interest and excitement (and, yes, revenue).  This formula is applied to all venues.  The recipe provides the predictable results they seek: flat greens = more long dramatic putts falling in the hole (and fewer “amateur looking misses” on short putts), coiffed and predictable bunkers = amazing sand saves while minimizing foolish looking misses, 10 to 15 under par = the golf course doesn’t seem too hard or too easy, etc. 

I believe the Tour’s objective (entertaining spectators) is different from that of recreational golf (entertaining participants).  And, it’s quite likely to go crazy attempting to relate one to the other. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat M. -

How tough do you think bunkers should be?

The average sand save ratio on the PGA Tour is roughly 50%. What do you think it should be? 40%? 30%? 20%?


David,

It depends upon to what degree you consider a bunker a hazard.

It depends upon to what degree you want that architectural feature to influence thought and play.

As an example, let's take Rae's Creek and related water hazards at ANGC.

On #  11,  if the water left of the green was a large bunker instead, would you be content with a 50 % recovery stat if you wanted that bunker to be relevant and influence play ?    To the degree that the water does ?
I sure wouldn't accept a 50 % recovery rate as an adequate equivalent in terms of that feature influencing thought and play to the degree the water does today.

Now, let's go to # 12.
Same question

# 13
Same question.

In the context of comparative analysis I don't find 50 % acceptable, it's too low, and as such, diminishes the relevance of the feature.

[David_Tepper]

"In the context of comparative analysis I don't find 50 % acceptable,"

Pat M. -

If you don't find 50% acceptable, what ratio would you find acceptable?
It's a simple question.

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

"In the context of comparative analysis I don't find 50 % acceptable,"

Pat M. -

If you don't find 50% acceptable, what ratio would you find acceptable?
It's a simple question.

No, it's not a simple question because it's a global number and avoids situation specifics, as in the example I provided you.

In addition, it's the tail wagging the dog, it's designing by seeking to achieve a predetermined statistical outcome, it's design vis a vis profile statistics, creating a feature to achieve a predetermined outcome as a percentage  rather than designing a feature to influence thought and play with little regard to the statistical outcome.

Should the Devil's asshole have been designed for a predetermined statistical outcome or designed as it was with no regard for the statistical outcome ?   You favor the former while I favor the later.

But I want you to think of the concept of a hazard, mentally and physically.
How effective is that hazard if it has no influence, and presents no deterrent on the golfer's ability to achieve par 50 % of the time ? 

[Mike Hendren]

When Nashville's Belle Meade was totally renovated by Rees Jones a few years ago, three different types of bunker sand were tested by the membership in practice bunkers prior to the renovation.

The sand at Chambers Bay is the toughest I've played out of.    Virtually anywhere else I love finding greenside sand as that's the only part of my game retained from my 4 handicap days.

Bogey

[JESII]

You're citing 50% as the penalty for being in a bunker but that's not accurate. 50% is against par when the player has already missed a shot or two to end up in the bunker. What do the PGA Tour guys average when they miss a green by say 5 yards at Pinehurst or Oakmont...but not in a bunker.

I think it's pretty close to a wash...

Who cares about the PGA Tour guys?

[David_Tepper]

"Who cares about the PGA Tour guys?"

Jim S. -

It would appear Pat Mucci does, as he has specifically referenced bunker play in PGA Tour & championship golf events on this thread.

DT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()